Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RUGBY CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (REPORT)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General whether he has now considered the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce; and what action he is taking thereon.

Mr. MacColl: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations in Part V of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce for providing for the welfare of children in matrimonial proceedings.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The recommendations made by the Royal Commission cover a very wide and varied field. Many of them would require legislation, for which I can hold out no prospect at present, more particularly as the Commission was far from unanimous on some of the most important of its recommendations. Others, however, can be dealt with by administrative action or by amendments to the rules of court, and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is at present considering these recommendations with

a view to bringing the necessary amendments before the Supreme Court Rule Committee in due course.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While thanking the Attorney-General for the prospect of something being done by way of altering the rules or by administrative action, may I ask him if he cannot give an assurance that there will be legislation next Session to bring into effect some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that otherwise many people will regard the Royal Commission as rather a waste of time and money?

The Attorney-General: As I said, I can hold out no prospect of legislation at present.

Mr. MacColl: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind that the very reasons he has advanced are sound reasons for picking out the recommendations affecting children which were unanimously agreed by the Royal Commission and which, if adopted, would do something to help the innocent victims of matrimonial strife who are suffering all the time?

The Attorney-General: The recommendation that no decree nisi should be granted until a court is satisfied about the arrangements for the children would, of course, involve legislation, but there is no reason why rules of court should not require any party who is asking for custody to state what arrangement he or she proposes for the care and upbringing of the children concerned. That is a matter that could be dealt with by rules of court.

Mrs. White: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there are some points which could be dealt with fairly soon by legislation without entering into the wider controversial issues of the Report? To give one example, there is the position of those separated before 1937, on which there is a strong recommendation and which, in the nature of the case, is an urgent matter for those concerned.

The Attorney-General: There are different views as to how controversial that kind of legislation would prove to be. I am afraid I cannot add to what I have already said about the prospect of legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID SCHEME

Mr. Willey: asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement upon the implementation of Section 5 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949.

Mr. Janner: asked the Attorney-General whether he will now bring into operation the Legal Advice Scheme under the Legal Aid and Advice Act.

The Attorney-General: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 6th February, except that my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, is considering the observations of the Select Committee on Estimates about the advantages of implementing Section 5 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949.

Mr. Wiley: While expressing no surprise at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether, in view of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, he will assure the House that urgent attention will be given to this problem and that an endeavour will be made to meet the wishes of the Select Committee?

The Attorney-General: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that very close consideration is being given to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. Whether its conclusions as to the economy which might result from the institution of a legal advice scheme are well founded is, perhaps, somewhat open to doubt.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what his personal views are about the matter and whether he proposes to help in this? Is he not aware that a scheme of this kind is really an urgent necessity in many cases, and does he not think that he ought to throw in his weight in order that the scheme might be put into effect?

The Attorney-General: As I signed the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee, the hon. Gentleman should be able to learn what my views were at that time.

Mr. Janner: asked the Attorney-General whether he will now make legal aid available for litigants whose cases proceed to the House of Lords, and particularly when they are the respondent in such appeals.

The Attorney-General: No. This extension of the Legal Aid Scheme is not one which Her Majesty's Government could contemplate at present.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it fair that if a person has passed through all the other proceedings right up to the House of Lords and has been successful all the way he should not be assisted in the event of the other party taking him to the Lords so that he or she may contest the matter? Surely, that is a very unfair situation. Secondly, as the matter involves so very few, does not the right hon. Gentleman think he ought to reconsider the position and see to it that such a person is helped?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hale: I do not want to stop an answer being given, but apparently none is to be given. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the House of Lords is one of those tribunals before which it is almost impossible for a person to proceed in forma pauperis without substantial financial assistance from somebody, because the cost of printing, reproducing, and lodging the documents alone is a very heavy burden indeed? In those circumstances, is not this a glaring example of an anomaly which ought to be put right?

The Attorney-General: I have nothing to add to the Answer I have already given on this subject. The cost of an appeal to the House of Lords, or indeed the cost of defending an appeal, which would fall upon the Legal Aid Fund and would benefit perhaps one or two individuals might, with advantage, be more usefully employed in giving aid and assistance in inferior courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Retirement and Old-Age Pensioners

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware of the widespread concern amongst old-age pensioners over the increase in the price of tobacco and the pending increases in the price of bread, milk and coal; and if he will increase pensions and other National Insurance


benefits and thus protect the poorest section of the community from the consequences of the ever-increasing cost of living.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the £1 depreciated in purchasing value by 1s. 6d. during the last year; and whether he will increase oldage pensions, war disabled pensions and other pensions by 1s. 6d. in the £to compensate for this loss.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consideration has been given to relieving the distress among the old-age pensioners consequent upon the further increase in the cost of living; and what action it is proposed to take to deal with this problem.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have no proposals to bring forward at present affecting the rates of retirement pensions and contributions under the National Insurance Scheme. Movements of prices require to be taken into account generally and not only in connection with one or two particular changes. So far as war pensions are concerned, I would refer the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) to my reply to his Question on 14th May on this subject. The House will be aware of the improvements being made in respect of war widows with children.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that answer shows a callous indifference to the needs of old-age pensioners? Is he not aware that since the last increase took place the rise in the cost of living has devalued the 65s. for a married couple by 5s., and that there are further increases pending? Since it takes four months from the time a Bill is presented in the House until the pension becomes operative, what does the Minister think the old folk will do in the coming winter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As regards the expression "callous" and something or other used by the hon. Gentleman

Mr. Fernyhough: "Indifference."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged—"callous indifference". It is, of course, a fact that the real value of the pension is

considerably better than it was during a considerable part of the term of office of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Lewis: Surely that is playing at it? Everyone of every political party knows that old-age pensioners are having a very raw deal at the moment. In view of the fact that both sides of the House would give every assistance to the Minister, will he not at least ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant him the necessary funds so that we can expedite the introduction of some improvement? We are not seeking to place the blame. Will the Minister please do something for old-age pensioners particularly, and the war disabled?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member really must bear in mind the current real value of the pension as against that in previous periods. as well as the recommendation of the Phillips Committee that the main rates of benefit under the National Insurance Scheme should not be the subject of frequent alterations.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my Question which reads:
What consideration has been given to relieving the distress among the old-age pensioners consequent upon the further increase in the cost of living?
Can the Minister deny that when they got an increase previously it was to keep up with rising prices? Is he not aware that so far this year prices have gone up faster than for several years past? Will he not do something at least for the over one million who are on National Assistance by increasing the supplementary grants.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as National Assistance is concerned, that is a separate matter on which the hon. Member may care to put down a separate Question on the Order Paper. As regards the main Question, if he will study my original Answer he will see that I went out of my way to make clear that we must look at price movements as a whole. For example, in the recent fluctuation of food prices, we have had potatoes and green vegetables going up and eggs and butter going down.

Industrial Injuries (Claims)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the numbers of persons who have made


claims under the Industrial Injuries Act, the number of such claims which have been refused since October, 1951, until the latest convenient stated date, and similar figures for the period from the inception of the Act until October, 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The only figures available as to claims are the total number made, and separate figures for those successful or unsuccessful in whole or in part are not maintained. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of claims made during each year from I950 and the percentage of them in which the applicant exercised his right of appeal.

Following are the claims under the Industrial Injuries Act:


Year
Number of Claims
Percentage of Appeals


1950
886,000
0·82


1951
855,000
0·87


1952
873,000
0·82


1953
902,000
0·78


1954
944,000
0·76


1955
970,000
0·73


The increase in the number of claims is due to the build-up of long-term disablement benefit.

Disabled ex-Service Men

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now raise the basic pension for totally disabled ex-Service men to 90s. a week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the second part of the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 14th May, and I am sending him a copy of the letter to which I referred in that reply.

Sir F. Medlicott: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is that no Government since the war seems sufficiently to have taken into account that this is a diminishing liability which will be extinguished altogether on the death of the last survivor of the last war? As these men have given so much, surely we ought not to begrudge them so little.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I am sure my hon. Friend will know, the increase in the basic rate of war disability pension made last year was the biggest ever made in the history of war pensions.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he regards 90s. per week as too much for a man who is

totally disabled and has rendered service in previous wars? If he does not, why does he not do something about it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, will be well aware that in cases of total disability a number of other allowances are applicable, which, I think, somewhat alter the picture he has in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to convince the British Legion about that? Why is it that the British Legion constantly agitates for an improvement in the conditions of totally disabled men? In particular, has he taken into account the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser)?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I always pay great attention to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale. As regards the British Legion, it is very human and very natural that it should wish to press for further assistance for those whom it represents, and I am sure the whole House would have sympathy with that. But if the right hon. Gentleman asks why I have failed to persuade the British Legion of the appropriateness of our present measures, it must be because I lack the right hon. Gentleman's persuasive tongue.

Tobacco Token Scheme

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, with a view to facilitating the abolition of the retired pensioners tobacco token scheme, which discriminates unfairly as between smokers and non-smokers, he will now consider increasing the pensions of smokers and non-smokers alike by 2s. 6d. per week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Retirement pensions are National Insurance payments depending on contributions, and a change in this rate would involve wider considerations than that of the tobacco token scheme.

Mr. du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this scheme is also unfair as between different classes of pensioner, and is he not further aware of the very substantial public demand at this time that this scheme should be reformed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Questions about this scheme, as my hon. Friend will be


aware, are put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a fact which, as a former Financial Secretary, I have good reason to remember.

Mr. du Cann: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I put a Question on this subject to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a short time ago, and he has now referred me to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: I should have to see the original Question before I could pass any judgment on that.

Mr. Hale: Is the Minister aware that I have had a letter from one of my old-age pensioner constituents, saying that the increase of 3s. per 1b. on tobacco was passed on to old-age pensioners at the rate of £1 1s. 4d. per 1b. In those circumstances, would the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Chancellor whether any steps should be taken, when extra taxation is put upon old-age pensioners, to see that it is not exploited?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, the general effect of any change on the cost of living is one which has to be taken into account; but as regards this particular change—on which I think the hon. Member has not quite got his figures right— the effect on the cost of living is comparatively small.

Short-time Working (Unemployment Benefit)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent the recent arrangements for payment of unemployment pay to workers on short-time apply to workers in the cotton industry.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No new arrangements have been made by my Department on this subject. If the hon. Member has in mind recent decisions of the National Insurance Commissioner on cases arising in the engineering industry, these decisions, which turned on the construction of the agreements in force in these cases, apply only where these, or similar, agreements are in operation.
I understand that the majority of workers on short-time in the cotton industry are receiving unemployment benefit.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the Minister for that answer. I would be

grateful if he would look into the matter and have a word with the unions to find out whether that really is the case, because my information is that a very large number of people were not receiving benefit.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures which I have indicate that the majority who are on short time in the cotton industry are receiving it; but if the hon. Member so wishes, I will, of course, check it further.

Cardiff Office (Transfer of Functions)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what functions of his Department at Cardiff are to be transferred to Newcastle, as a consequence of recent deliberations; and what considerations have led to these deliberations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The functions to be transferred are the preparation and issue of pension books for National Insurance pensioners in Wales. As these books are in any event delivered through post offices, the service to individual pensioners will not be affected in any way. On the other hand, the centralisation of this work together with that for England and Scotland at Newcastle, where it can be highly mechanised, will lead to a saving of about 150 staff, representing an annual expenditure of about £83,000.

Mr. Gower: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend considers that this will be an economy, why were these functions previously transferred from London to Cardiff? In view of the fact that it represents a marked change in policy, as since the war all Governments have introduced devolution as a principle, is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied about this?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot possibly answer the first part of the Question as to why these functions were originally sent to Cardiff. So far as the present change is concerned, it has absolutely nothing to do with general principles of devolution. It derives merely from the fact that this kind of operation is most economically conducted if it is highly mechanised; but if we are to get the benefits of a high degree of mechanisation, we must centralise it in one place for the three parts of the country.

Mr. Callaghan: What will happen to the 150 staff whom we are saving?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The normal arrangements are being made. In the first place, an attempt is made to post to other Departments in the area. Some will be required to follow the work to Newcastle, and it may be that the services of certain temporary staff will be dispensed with in due course.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister not aware that some of these staff were transferred for the Government's convenience from London to Cardiff not too long ago? Is it fair to ask them to uproot their homes again and go to Newcastle?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have, naturally, the greatest sympathy with any staff who are disturbed by these changes, but the House would not, I am sure, ask me to undertake the work of my Department inefficiently and extravagantly for that reason.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware how glad we are that these functions are being transferred to Long Benton, that they will be most efficiently carried out, and how grateful we always are that the headquarters of the Ministry of National Insurance is in such a firstclass part of the country?

Mr. Steele: While I do not doubt the efficiency of the officials at Long Benton, can the Minister say how many people are involved from Cardiff and, I understand, from Edinburgh also, or is it the work now being done in the local offices which is being transferred to Newcastle?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The work which is being transferred is not work being done in the local offices. It is work being transferred from Cardiff and Edinburgh. In all, 150 staff will be saved, of whom, in round figures, 50 are from Cardiff and 100 from Edinburgh.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what representations he has received from organisations in Wales, and in particular from the Council for Wales, about the proposal that certain functions of his Department be transferred from Cardiff to Newcastle.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have received representations from the staff affected by

the transfer. I also understand that the Council for Wales has made representations to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary and Minister for Welsh Affairs, to which he has replied.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Council for Wales is opposed to this transfer? Secondly. will there be a loss of status on the part of those who are the heads of this Department in Wales?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot possibly say what the view of the Council for Wales will be now that it has received my right hon. and gallant Friend's explanation of these changes. So far as the heads of the Department are concerned, I am not clear whom my hon. Friend has in mind. We are transferring a particular class of work which I have described. That affects the staff directly concerned with that. It does not affect the status of such people as my Controller for Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Strikes (Losses)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now publish figures on the basis of Table 19 of his statistical digest giving the estimated tonnage of coal lost through strikes in 1955 and in the period January-March, 1956.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The figures are 2,688,000 and 363,000 tons, respectively.

Mr. Cooper: In the light of the figures he has given, would my right hon. Friend agree that the elimination of strikes, of which there were no fewer than 3,581 last year, is vital if we are to solve our balance of payments problem?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir, most certainly I would agree. The diminution of stoppages in the coal industry would help our balance of payments position very much indeed.

Prices

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board in relation to the prices of industrial and domestic coal, having regard to the


Board's statutory obligation to avoid any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: None, Sir. There is no discrimination between classes of user. The Coal Board charges comparable prices for comparable coals, irrespective of who buys them. Any impression that the domestic consumer is discriminated against probably arises from the following causes. First, much of the coal used by industry is of lower quality than that supplied to the domestic market. The coals which are in heavy demand by householders are large coals which are relatively scarce and costly to produce. Secondly, delivered prices to consumers are naturally affected by varying distribution costs; it is much more expensive to deliver small quantities in bags to householders than large tonnages in bulk to factories.

Mr. Speir: In view of what my right hon. Friend has just said, can he explain how the contrary view has gained credence in many quarters?

Mr. Jones: I can only imagine that many people, including many hon. Members opposite have for too long been labouring what I consider to be a false point.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Underground Gasification (Pilot Plant)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can now make a further statement about the future of underground gasification.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Yes, Sir. The development of the technique of underground gasification has now reached the point at which the establishment of a pilot scale plant is desirable. As from 1st July, the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Authority have, within their respective spheres, accepted responsibility for the planning and construction of this pilot plant and have undertaken to explore the possibilities of exploitation on a commercial scale. Details of the transition to these new arrangements are now under discussion between my Ministry and the two Authorities. I have indicated to both of them the importance of

developing with the utmost expedition this important new technique, as well as my wish that private enterprise should be associated with the work, particularly so that full advantage of it can be taken in overseas markets.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why has my right hon. Friend not been able to entrust the whole of this work to private enterprise?

Mr. Jones: For a statutory reason and a practical reason. As the Statute now stands, the National Coal Board is the sole authority responsible for the exploitation of the coal resources of the country. The practical reason is that it is desirable that one authority should determine which coal deposits should be exploited by mining and which by underground gasification. For that reason, I thought it right that ultimate responsibility should be given to the National Coal Board but, subject to that ultimate responsibility, I hope that the National Coal Board will be able to devolve on private firms as much as it can of the operating work.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Government Surplus Stocks (Disposal)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Supply what percentage of the 19 tons of screws offered for sale by his Department on Friday, 13th April, were unused.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): All the screws were unused, but they were rusty and mixed in sizes.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend gave me precisely the same answer about 1I8 tons of nails, can he say whether these screws were rendered rusty by his Department or were badly stored and, therefore, were rusty when they were delivered to him by another Department?

Mr. Maudling: Any question on the storage of the screws should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further? He has admitted that he sold screws in a rusty condition. I have asked whether he made them rusty or, if not, who did?

Mr. Maudling: My responsibility is to dispose of stores declared surplus by the War Office. We naturally considered whether it was worth while de-rusting them, but the cost of doing so would not have been worth while.

Mr. Lewis: Did they come from B.S.A.?

Atomic Device (Monte Bello Tests)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a statement on the recent explosion of the British atomic device on the Monte Bello Islands; and what further tests are to take place.

Mr. Maudling: An atomic device was successfully exploded on 16th May in the Monte Bello Islands off the West Coast of Australia. It is planned to test a further device shortly. The House will no doubt wish to join me in thanking the Australian Government for all they have done to help in the staging of this test series and in congratulating the Operation Commander, Commodore Martell, R.N., and his team of Servicemen and scientists on the success of the first part of the Operation.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister's reply include a possible hydrogen test in the future? Is it not a fact that British scientists have reported that the six American and Russian hydrogen tests which have taken place during the last three years have produced an element of radioactive fall-out known as strontium, which is potentially most dangerous to human welfare? Is it not time these tests were altered or omitted?

Mr. Maudling: None of the devices concerned in these tests has more than a few tens of kilotons of yield.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How much money has been spent on these tests? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is repeatedly stressing the fact that we need less Government expenditure and are in an economic crisis? How does the explosion of devices in the Monte Bello Islands assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his present dilemma?

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will certainly endeavour to give him the figures, but these

tests are all part of our general defence effort, which, I think, the House as a whole will agree is producing some good results.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Potatoes

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that as a result of increased supplies the apparent shortage of potatoes is really artificial but prices are rather higher than usual; and whether, in view of this, he will now take steps to control the price of this basic commodity.

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that 8,500tons of potatoes imported from Holland eight weeks ago to wharves in Tooley Street, Bermondsey, have been allowed to rot and that 400 tons have been sent back to Holland as pig food, but that in spite of such surpluses prices to the consumer remain high; and if he will therefore reimpose price control.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 27 together.
My right hon. Friend is aware that merchants imported very large quantities of potatoes in April, that some have been returned and that others remain unsold. We are also aware that wholesale and retail prices have fallen substantially in recent weeks and can see no reason for Government intervention.

Mr. Lewis: Wholesale prices may have fallen substantially, but is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that potatoes are being sold retail at anything from 4d. or 5d. or 6d. 1b.? In view of the fact that at this time of the year they are usually from ld. lb. to 3d. 1b., will the hon. Gentleman see to it that something is done to put these potatoes on the market at a reasonable price?

Mr. Nugent: I think the hon. Member has a rather pessimistic view of the retail price of potatoes. On a recent survey that we made on 28th May over about 300 retail premises in various parts of the country, in Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds,


Birmingham, and London, we found that in over half of the shops the retail price was 3d. or under.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he would greatly aid housewives if he specified those shops? However, can he tell the House what the maximum retail price was under price control, when circumstances were often much more difficult than we face this year?

Mr. Nugent: The maximum retail controlled price of potatoes this time last year was 2½d. or 3d. 1b., very similar to what it is now.

Mr. Collins: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that thousands of tons of potatoes have been imported and have rotted and have had to be destroyed because the Minister had no reliable information as to stock and disclosed no reliable information to the House? Is he aware that this situation arises out of the deplorable policy of his Department, which conveys no information as to quantities here and makes no attempt to organise distribution?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member's deductions. The result of our policy was a bigger supply of potatoes, and now a lower price.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that, with permission, he would answer these two Questions together. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is not here and obviously has another engagement, and as the hon. Gentleman has asked for permission to answer my hon. Friend's Question but has not in fact done so, can you say, Mr. Speaker, what remedy we have if an hon. Member would like to ask a supplementary question on the matter contained in my hon. Friend's Question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot act as a substitute for the hon. Member for Bermondsey.

Ordnance Survey, Southampton

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the future of the Ordnance Survey offices at present located at Southampton.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the future of the Ordnance Survey offices at present located in Southampton.

Mr. Nugent: After re-examining, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary, the strategic case for moving the Ordnance Survey to Wellingborough, it has been decided that it does not outweigh the advantages of retaining the traditional location at Southampton. The move to Wellingborough will, therefore, not take place.

Mr. Howard: While thanking my hon. Friend for speedily countermanding this move when circumstances warranted it, may I ask whether he can now say whether the department at Chessington will be moved to Southampton?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid I am not able to give any definite information about the department at Chessington.

Dr. King: Whilst sincerely thanking the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the staff concerned and the citizens of Southampton for this change of policy, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) has been, by Question and debate in the House, advocating this change of policy upon successive Governments for the past six years, and that being so, would it not have been in accordance with Parliamentary courtesy if the Minister had informed either the hon. Member or the House in order that the hon. Member might have been one of the first to know, instead of having to get the information from the local Press and being one of the last people to know that the Government had adopted the policy he has been advocating?

Mr. Nugent: I am not aware of any discourtesy in the matter. I wrote to four or five Members of Parliament who, I thought, were interested in this matter. If I overlooked anyone, I apologise.

Calf Subsidy Scheme

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount which has been paid each year to farmers under the Calf Subsidy Scheme since 1948–49; and what has been the cost of its administration.

Mr. Nugent: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Willey: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the percentage of administrative overheads is being reduced and whether he is satisfied that this is being economically administered?

Mr. Nugent: Yes. The percentage of overheads shows a considerable reduction over that of a few years ago. It amounts now to 3s. per calf examined, I think, about 2 per cent. of the total cost. I think it is being very economically done.

The following are the figures:
Payments to farmers in the United Kingdom under the Calf Subsidy Scheme have been as follows. (The figures relate to financial years):—

£


1948-49
3,637,035


1949-50
7,210,210


1950-51
6,242,226


1951-52
4,943,795


1952-53
3,823,369


1953-54
7,386,709


1954-55
7,206,510


1955-56
7,702,172



(provisional)

It is estimated that the costs of administering the Scheme during these years, was:—



£


1948-49
250,000


1949-50
350,000


1950-51
330,000


1951-52
275,000


1952-53
101,000


1953-54
199,000


1954-55
213,000


1955-56
229,000

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Dentists (Superannuation)

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Health if he will amend the Regulations to enable those dental practitioners who exercised their option under Regulation 46 (3) (m) to join the superannuation scheme if they so desire.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): No. Sir.

Mr. Howard: In view of the change which is foreshadowed by the Finance Bill in the pension rights of self-employed people, will my hon. Friend reconsider the position of those dentists

who have opted out of the scheme in order that they may avail themselves of tax advantages which are open to other members of their profession?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that this would not apply merely to dentists but to people of all professions, and no superannuation scheme can be run on a sound actuarial basis unless there is some finality about options. It was at the direct request of the profession that certain members were allowed to opt out. That was eight years ago, and I think it is unreasonable to suggest that we should now reverse the policy and allow them to have their cake and eat it.

Reciprocal Agreements (Benefits)

Mr. Atkins: asked the Minister of Health what test of means is required of persons seeking to obtain benefit under reciprocal agreements by which British subjects travelling abroad may obtain medical or hospital treatment.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The benefits enjoyed by British subjects employed in countries with which we have so far concluded reciprocal agreements depend on insurance qualifications only and are not subject to a means test. The Conventions on Social and Medical Assistance concluded by the Council of Europe and the former Brussels Treaty countries apply to indigent persons only, and the benefits they confer are subject to a test of means in accordance with the legislation of each Contracting Party.

Mr. Atkins: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to ensure that people going abroad know of the reciprocal agreements under which British subjects travelling abroad may obtain medical or hospital treatment, and how to make use of them if the need arises.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In general, the agreements so far concluded relate to British subjects going abroad for employment. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance gave publicity to these agreements, both when they were signed and when they were ratified, and leaflets describing their detailed provisions (including those relating to medical and hospital treatment) are sent to inquirers by that Department.

Mr. Atkins: Could my hon. Friend give a little publicity to the arrangements? Most people who go abroad do not know to which countries these arrangements apply, let alone how to make use of them when they are abroad. Could my hon. Friend not take further steps to make these matters better known?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: This affects only a small group of people, and if someone is going abroad to take up employment he or she naturally applies to the Departments to find out what facilities will be available.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the number of complaints about the high medical charges in certain countries, particularly in the United States, would the hon. Lady not think it advisable to inform the public that it is possible, on payment of a small premium, to cover oneself under an insurance scheme for medical service which might be required, especially in the United States?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: That raises another point, but I shall be happy to look into it.

Mr. Atkins: asked the Minister of Health with which foreign Governments he is now having discussions with a view to making reciprocal agreements under which British subjects may obtain medical or hospital treatment when in those countries.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There is at present nothing to add to the Answer given on 16th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott).

Mr. Atkins: Are there no discussions going on? Is that because there are no countries in which there is any kind of health service which would be a basis for making an agreement, or is it because all the other countries have refused to enter into discussions?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In the main, we can bring about reciprocal agreements only where there are comparable services upon which we can base some negotiations. As my hon. Friend knows, there are many countries with which we have agreements but quite a number have nothing with which we could make reciprocal arrangements.

Mental Illness (Report)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he can now state when he expects to receive the report of the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is unable to say when the Royal Commission will report but hopes that it will be by the end of the year.

Dr. Johnson: Can the Commission be requested to expedite its report so that it is received before the next Parliamentary Session with a view to legislation?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think my hon. Friend appreciates that this is a very wide subject. The Commission has completed taking evidence only a short while ago from the many bodies interested in this problem. Whilst I know that the Commission wishes to complete its report as quickly as possible, we must appreciate the vast task which it has in collating all the evidence it has received.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady say how often the Commission has sat up to date?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-SOVIET FISHERIES AGREEMENT

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Agreement with the Soviet Government in regard to fisheries in waters adjacent to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): A new Anglo-Soviet Fisheries Agreement was signed in Moscow on 25th May. The Agreement is subject to ratification. The text has been published as a White Paper and is now available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. Briefly, the Agreement permits fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom to fish in an area, which is defined in the Agreement, up to a distance of three miles from the Soviet coastline at low-water mark. It replaces a temporary agreement signed in 1930, which expired in July, 1955.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the conclusion of this pact, following upon the Faroese agreement last year, will give much satisfaction to our longdistance trawling interests, particularly in respect of the long-term basis of the agreement? Is the noble Lord quite happy about the exclusion of certain areas, in some cases up to 100 miles and in many cases up to 12 miles off the coast, which we in this country always regarded as extra-territorial? Is not the continual erosion of that territorial waters principle likely to lead us into very great difficulties in the future? Should there not be some endeavour to try to enforce what have always been regarded as fishing rights up to a limit of only three miles?

Lord John Hope: As the hon. Member knows, the whole question of territorial limits falls to be discussed by the United Nations very soon. Meanwhile, I very much appreciate the hon. Member's comments on this particular agreement.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my noble Friend aware that this is a very welcome agreement and that the fishing industry will think that it is another example of what can be done by mutual discussion against unilateral action? Will the Government therefore take every possible opportunity to bring this to the notice of other Governments who might feel inclined to take further unilateral action in addition to that which they have already taken?

Lord John Hope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Younger: Whilst joining with other hon. Members in welcoming this agreement, may I ask whether the reference to three miles in the Answer implies that there was a general recognition on both sides that three miles is the normal extent of territorial waters, a point which has been denied in some other negotiations?

Lord John Hope: It would not be right for me to give the impression that the Soviet Government recognise three miles as the normal limit. In their view this is a direct concession to us.

Mr. Duthie: Can my noble Friend say whether a similar agreement has been concluded between the Soviet Government and any other country which has fishing interests?

Lord John Hope: No, Sir, I think not. But certainly, as far as this three-mile concession goes, it is given only to our own vessels.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (COLONIAL AFFAIRS)

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that more Questions are now being asked on colonial affairs than on any other subject, he will arrange for these Questions to be answered on two days each week instead of on one.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is anxious that we should serve the House as well as we can in this matter. There are a number of considerations that enter in and we have to reconcile conflicting claims so as to achieve a reasonable and fair balance and thus endeavour to meet the wishes of hon. Members as far as possible. My right hon. Friend and I believe that the interests of the House will best be served by keeping to the present arrangements.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is very great difficulty in getting the facts on the colonial situation? Will he consider discussing this matter further through the usual channels to see whether any means can be devised to give hon. Members fuller and better opportunities of obtaining early information on colonial matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the President of the Board of Trade answers Questions twice a week, though there is no Board, there is diminished trade and the President has not very much to say?

Mr. Butler: I realise that there are some Departments which answer twice a week, and I have statistics, in answer to the hon. Member, of the number of Questions that are placed on the Order Paper. If it is a question of fact, it would be possible, of course, to put down a Written Question. We also have to reflect that answers from the Colonies have to be collected and take a little longer than do answers in some other Departments. Therefore, there are some distinct difficulties. It is clear that answers from the Colonies have increased in number and


there is a case for the hon. Member's Question, but in view of the several instances I have had of requests by other Departments for an extra day, I think that we had better consider the matter a good deal further before I give a reply other than that which I have given today.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will you, Mr. Speaker, take the opportunity of correcting the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that there is no Board of Trade, in view of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Archbishop of Canterbury are members of it?

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman publish the evidence on the number of Questions which have been put down to different Departments and of the other Departments in respect of which requests have been made for more than one Question day a week?

Mr. Butler: I thought that we might have an opportunity of discussing the matter through the usual channels before taking further action, and of considering what should be done in the best interests of the House.

Mr. Dugdale: Apart from the convenience of hon. Members, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in the Colonies should know that Questions are being asked and interest is being taken in colonial affairs? Will he, therefore, bear that in mind when considering whether colonial Questions should be allowed on two days?

Mr. Butler: I should have thought from the statistics of what appears on the Order Paper that the people in the Colonies are well aware of the interest taken in them.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that a case exists for the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Can we take it that that case will be further considered?

Mr. Butler: I have said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that if he would agree to discuss this matter through the usual channels we would certainly do so.

Mr. Allaun: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider as an alternative the answering of Oral Questions on a Friday morning?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's proposals for reform of the House of Lords.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Hale: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this was about the only item in the Tory programme at the last Election and it was a definite promise that steps would be taken? Is he further aware that the practice of making another place a mausoleum for distressed and retired Tory Ministers, whose incapacity has become so great as to be noticeable even amongst their colleagues, has aggravated the situation? Is he further aware that 90 per cent. of the Members do not attend, that absenteeism is rampant amongst both dukes and bishops, and if the Government have no policy, will he consult the chairman of the National Coal Board as to how to deal with unproductive units?

Mr. Butler: The reflections on another place, and on those going to it, hardly reflect with any satisfaction upon the former Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman's principal chief. As regards the details of our policy at the last Election, almost every item in our Election policy has already been carried out, as I propose to indicate in a speech at the forthcoming weekend, of which I will send a copy to the hon. Gentleman for greater convenience. As regards the House of Lords itself, we have plenty of ideas, but I am not in a position to announce the proposals of the Government, and therefore I have given the hon. Gentleman the only clear answer I could give him.

Dame Irene Ward: Am I right in assuming from the statement of my right hon. Friend that progress is being made with proposals which Her Majesty's Government intend to put forward, in view of the fact that many Conservatives are interested in moving forward in this direction?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The hon. Lady may be satisfied that the mental processes of the Government are always in a state of progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM (ELECTIONS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the South Vietnam Government to the request of the co-chairmen appointed by the Geneva Conference of 1954 for the suggestion of a suitable date for inter-zonal talks with a view to arranging elections for uniting Vietnam.

Lord John Hope: Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government have agreed that none of the replies to the co-chairmen's messages of 8th of May should be published before all have been received and circulated to the remaining members of the Geneva Conference and to the Supervisory Powers. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to say anything at present about the reply received from the Vietnamese Government.

Mr. Brockway: Will the noble Lord seek to expedite the reply? Is it not the case that the Geneva Conference brought a cease-fire in Indo-China on the basis of unifying elections, and is not this proposal being held up by the attitude of the South Vietnam Government supported by the American Government?

Lord John Hope: I cannot comment on the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman until the rest of the replles for which we are waiting have come in. I am sorry.

Mr. Younger: Can the noble Lord tell us approximately how many replies are outstanding, and when we may expect that some fairly definite and clear statement will be made on this important matter? Further, is the Joint UnderSecretary of State aware that my hon. Friend is right in suggesting that, if this proposal for elections cannot take place for any reason, then the main basis of the Geneva Agreement will have gone?

Lord John Hope: I am not sure that I can answer the first question of the right hon. Gentleman exactly, but I can tell him that we have had replies from the French and the Vietnam Governments and from the International Supervisory Commission for Vietnam. The Viet Minh have not yet replied. I cannot tell him about the others.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (SUPERVISORY COMMISSION)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the suspension of the activities of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission in Korea; and on the refusal of the sixteen nations to participate in another conference on the reunification of Korea.

Lord John Hope: As the answer is necessarily a long one, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I am also placing in the Library the texts of the Chinese Note of 9th April, of the reply delivered by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking on behalf of the Member Governments of the United Nations Command on 28th May and of the announcement made by the United Nations Command in the Military Armistice Commission in Korea on 31st May.

Mr. Henderson: Could the Minister say whether it has been made clear to the Government of China that the sixteen nations would be prepared to enter into a political conference on Korea, provided that it is on the basis of the United Nations objectives, and could he tell the House what are the United Nations objectives?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir, those concerned were informed that we are ready to discuss the situation provided that these conditions obtain, and they are two. The first objective is that under its Charter the United Nations is fully and rightfully empowered to take collective action to repel aggression, to restore peace and security and to extend its good offices to seeking a peaceful settlement in Korea. Secondly, in order to establish a unified, independent and democratic Korea, genuinely free elections should be held under United Nations supervision, for representatives in the National Assembly, in which representation shall be in direct proportion to the indigenous population in Korea.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is general satisfaction at this demonstration that we are no longer prepared to continue to observe treaties which the other man does not observe, and can we have a similar policy in Egypt, please?


Following is the answer:
On 9th April the Chinese Government sent a Note through Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in Peking to the member nations of the United Nations Command. This note referred to proposals which the Swiss and Swedish Governments had made for the reduction of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission in Korea. The note stated that the Chinese Government held that the difficulties of the Commission could only be removed when the questions of the peaceful unification of Korea and the withdrawal of foreign forces had been solved.
The note went on to propose a conference to discuss these two problems. It was considered by the Governments of the United Nations Command. In their view it showed no change in the unsatisfactory position adopted by the Chinese and North Koreans at the Geneva Conference of 1954 such as might make a further conference fruitful. The members of the United Nations Command remain ready to discuss the unification of Korea on the basis of the objectives approved by the United Nations, and are prepared to give every consideration to any concrete proposals the Chinese and North Koreans may have for a settlement of the Korean question in accordance with these objectives.
The difficulties of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission have been created by the conduct of the Chinese and North Koreans themselves. They have followed a policy of systematic frustration of the Commission ever since the Armistice Agreement was signed. They have persistently introduced military personnel and supplies through other ports of entry than those provided for in the Armistice Agreement, have failed to report these reinforcements and have prevented the Commission from conducting investigations. The proposals of the Swiss and Swedish Governments for reduction of the Commission were made necessary by Chinese and North Korean policy.
In the light of these facts the Governments of the United Nations Command believe that no evidence has been shown of the good faith which alone would enable any new conference to serve a useful purpose. They consider that until the Chinese and North Korean Governments are prepared to negotiate on the basis of the United Nations objectives such a conference would only result in a repetition of the deadlock at Geneva in 1954.
In view of Communist behaviour towards the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, the failure of the Chinese and North Korean Governments to agree to any reorganisation of the Commission and the inequitable burden consequently imposed on the United Nations Command, the Commander of the United Nations Forces in Korea was authorised to announce that those provisions of the Armistice Agreement governing the operations in South Korea of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission would be provisionally suspended during the time that the Communist side continued in default. The Governments of the United Nations Command continue to

regard the other provisions of the Armistice Agreement as being in force and will continue to maintain their effectiveness.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Ferrous Scrap Price

Mr. Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the iron and steel industry and with the scrap-metal merchants before he decided to raise the price of scrap metal by £2 a ton.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, my right hon. Friend consulted the Iron and Steel Board before making the Order increasing the maximum prices of ferrous scrap by an average of £2 a ton. The Iron and Steel Board informed us of the views of representative bodies of the iron and steel industry. The iron and steel industry and the scrap merchants were consulted by the Board of Trade about the manner in which the average increase was to be applied to individual prices.

Mr. Dugdale: Would it not be correct to say that not only the iron and steel industry but the scrap metal merchants themselves were against this rise, and would it not be worth while considering whether the Government might not make proposals for a decrease down to the figure which existed before the rise? Is not this one case, at any rate, where a rise might be prevented by the Government?

Mr. Low: The views of the scrap merchants and the iron and steel industry were given to us through the Iron and Steel Board, and it is not the usual practice to disclose the advice given to Ministers by statutory boards.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

U.S.S.R. (Air Day Display)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air which senior Royal Air Force officers will accompany him to Moscow.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames): My right hon. Friend will be accompanied by eight senior Royal Air Force officers on his visit to the Soviet Union for the Air


Day Display at Tushino on Sunday, 24th June. I will, with permission, circulate their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. de Freitas: Since the delegation is fairly large, will the Secretary of State have discussions with the air force there, and in particular would he have technical discussions on what would be the problems involved if subsequently a plan was agreed upon on the lines of President Eisenhower's, whereby, to lessen suspicion, there was standing air patrol over each other's territory?

Mr. Soames: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he will be aware, a proposal for mutual air inspection was recently put to the Soviet Government through the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee.
Following are the names:
Air Chief Marshal Sir Ronald IvelawChapman—Vice Chief of the Air Staff
Air Marshal Sir Thomas Pike—Deputy Chief of the Air Staff and Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Designate, Fighter Command
Air Marshal Sir Harry Broadhurst—Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Bomber Command
Air Vice-Marshal W. G. Cheshire, Air Officer Commanding, No. 13 Group
Air Vice-Marshal K. B. B. Cross, Air Officer Commanding, No. 3 Group
Air Vice-Marshal G. Silyn-Roberts, Bomber Command Group Captain F. E. Rosier, Fighter Command
Group Captain L. M. Hodges, Officer Commanding, Royal Air Force, Marham.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Incidents, Banbury

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War why Banbury has been declared out-of-bounds to British troops stationed nearby; and whether he will lift the ban.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): I regret to say that certain troops were involved in discreditable incidents at Banbury. In the circumstances, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, decided that the town should be placed out-of-bounds for men of the units concerned. He will review the position as necessary and my right hon. Friend does not propose to intervene.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a scandal that because of one or two unfortunate incidents a large number of British troops should be denied access to the town of Banbury, whereas American troops are allowed there? Could it not be left to the local police, assisted by British and American military police, if necessary, to maintain law and order, instead of having this indefensible and inexcusable ban?

Mr. Maclean: No, Sir. This measure was taken after consultation with the civil police, and it is considered advisable for the purpose of preventing further incidents. As I have said, my right hon. Friend has every confidence in the judgment of the Commander-in-Chief and he will review the position as and when advised.

Mr, Shinwell: But is it not true that, since the ban was imposed, the American troops have themselves voluntarily refused to take advantage of facilities in Banbury and have kept away? Is not the situation farcical? Why is this ban imposed simply because a number of men in a unit have had a fracas with men associated with the American Forces? Is it not a good thing that occasionally they should let themselves go?

Mr. Maclean: The discipline of the American forces is a matter for the American military authorities. It has nothing to do with us.

Mr. Isaacs: Can the Minister say if this made Banbury Cross?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Executions

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state the number of persons executed in Kenya during each quarter since the declaration of the emergency and the offences for which they were sentenced.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): As the reply contains a number of figures, with permission I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that while rightfully there has been condemnation of two executions in Cyprus there


have been more than 1,000 executions in Kenya, and that less than one-third of them have been for killing anyone? Is not that art appalling commentary on our administration there?


KENYA—EXECUTIONS


Period
Offence
Total Number of Executions each Quarter


Murder
Unlawful Possession
Consorting with Terrorists
Administering Unlawful Oaths
Furthering Terrorism*
Demanding Supplies for Terrorists*


Non-Mau Mau
Mau Mau
of Firearms
of Ammunition† and Explosives


1952—











4th Quarter
7
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
11

1953—










1st Quarter
1
19
—
—
—
—
—
—
20

2nd Quarter
3
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
9

3rd Quarter
—
17
—
—
—
—
—
—
17

4th Quarter
2
61
36
13
1
2
3
—
118

1954—










1st Quarter
1
38
38
14
22
2
2
—
117

2nd Quarter
7
49
42
16
46
8
1
2
171

3rd Quarter
6
24
70
21
84
16
2
—
223

4th Quarter
3
13
35
11
31
18
—
—
111

1955—










1st Quarter
1
4
24
6
29
—
—
—
64

2nd Quarter
5
22
37
5
5
2
—
—
76

3rd Quarter
1
14
20
4
3
4
—
—
46

4th Quarter
2
18
18
5
1
—
—
—
44

1956—










1st Quarter
17
8
17
—
—
2
—
—
44

TOTAL …
56
297
337
95
222
54
8
2
1,071

Offences marked * and † ceased to be capital offences with effect from 20th July, 1955, and 1st January, 1956, respectively.

Mr. Hare: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines my reply. I would also point out that Mau Mau caused 2,419 deaths by murder and wounded 1,543 people.
Following is the reply:

Orders of the Day — COPYRIGHT BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a large and complex Measure. Its first purpose is to restate the law of copyright. Its second is to state it in the context of the new technical developments which have taken place since the original Copyright Act, 1911, in television and the like. The third purpose is to permit full participation by the United Kingdom in international arrangements to protect the author. This is in no sense a party Measure. Whatever divisions of opinion there may be about individual Clauses of the Bill, I think they will straddle the Floor of the House of Commons and will not fall out upon a party line.
Before I explain the provisions of the Bill, there is one observation which I think I should make. Each right given by the law of copyright is of interest to more than one section of the community. Therefore, each right has to be, in a sense, a compromise between conflicting claims. One must, therefore, consider not only those who benefit but others, sometimes sections, sometimes the public at large, at whose expense the rights are given. We consider that the provisions of the Bill represent a fair compromise between these conflicting claims, though, naturally, the details in individual cases will need to be debated fairly closely in Committee.
The basis of the Bill is the work done by the Copyright Committee, appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), which was under the chairmanship of, first, my right hon. and noble Friend the Marquess of Reading, and, later, Sir Henry Gregory. Its Report was published in October, 1952, and, with minor exceptions here and there, is incorporated in the Bill. I think that hon. Members on all sides of the House would wish to join in paying a tribute to the work of the Committee. This has been a most formidable task. The Measure would have been quite impossible without that preparatory work.
The Committee was charged particularly to consider two matters: first, the

technical developments since 1911, and, secondly, the revised International Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works which was signed at Brussels in June, 1948.
I should like, first, to deal with the Convention. The object of the Convention is, of course, that as many nations as possible should treat copyright in the same way so that we can take reciprocal advantages from one another. The signatories of the Brussels Convention are known as the countries of the Berne Copyright Union. We have been a member of that club for a long time. We were a founder-member in 1886. Our adherence to the latest text does not involve any very large alteration in the existing law, but it does mean some small alterations.
Under the Convention the copyright enjoyed in literature, dramatic, musical and artistic works is exclusive for the life of the author plus 50 years thereafter. We have arrangements whereby a system of compulsory licensing could be exercised after the author's death. That would not be consistent with the new text, and will have to go.
I will not go into the merits of these provisions, which are set out in some detail in paragraphs 15–23 of the Committee's Report. The Committee stated the position very well, as follows:
the advantages of continued adherence to the Berne Union and to the latest Convention are overwhelming and greatly outweigh any possible disadvantages which might flow from the repeal of those provisions.
I commend that view to the House. In reaching a common international agreement, all nations have to compromise to some extent with each other's point of view.
The next thing that I would say about the Brussels Convention is that some countries, and, most importantly, the United States of America, are not in it. Until recently, the author of a work in the English language was unable to obtain copyright protection in the U.S.A. unless his work was manufactured there in the sense of being printed there from type set up in that country. That was a source of considerable and legitimate criticism by British authors, as I am sure the House will agree. Attempts have been made from time to time to bridge the gap between the Berne Union and the U.S.A. and some other Transatlantic


countries. The last attempt has been successful in the form of another International Convention known as the Universal Copyright Convention, drawn up under U.N.E.S.C.O. and signed in Geneva, in 1952. It is now in force.
The United States has ratified that Convention and has altered the provisions of its domestic law in favour of other countries who ratify to the same effect. Thus, if we become members, the work of our authors can enjoy protection in the United States upon the simple provision that on first publication the work should bear imprinted on it a small letter "c" plus the name of the copyright owner and the first year of publication. That will be an important and substantial gain for British authors. To permit ratification, only a fairly minor, technical amendment of the law is necessary. All that is largely uncontroversial and is largely covered in Part I of the Bill.
The same cannot be said about questions raised by the technical developments which the Copyright Committee considered. These technical developments are in such things as photocopying, sound recording. television and broadcasting generally. They have made necessary both the curtailment of some existing copyright privileges and the creation of some new rights. The object of the Bill is to try to seek a fair balance between the authors, the composers, the librarians, the record makers, the broadcasting authorities, the purveyors of entertainment and, last, but by no means least, the general public, the readers, students and the millions who enjoy television in their own homes. Our attempt here has been to strike a balance between those rights. Opinion can differ as to where the balance should be struck. I shall touch on some of the points in my remarks this afternoon and others will be debated in more detail later.
Perhaps I may start with a word about the normal term of copyright under the Berne Convention. The term of copyright for literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works, which is intellectual property, protected internationally by the Convention, is the life of the author plus 50 years thereafter. The Copyright Committee was impressed by the disparity between the term of protection given under the Copyright Act, 1911, to things like gramophone records, for example,

and that in the field of industrial property, for example, patents, where the right was 16 years.
The Committee accordingly recommended that copyright in things produced by quasi-industrial processes should normally be not 50, but 25 years to bring the two states of rights rather closer together. The Bill provides for this for photographs, sound recordings, typographical arrangements and for the new television performing right. As originally introduced, the Bill provided for 25 years for films as well, but the Government have been impressed by the argument that, artistically speaking, a film, by the nature of the contribution which its director makes to it, is very much more than the sum total of its component parts. The Bill now provides for 50 years in the case of films while retaining 25 years for those other purposes.

Mr. J. T. Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what status is enjoyed by some of the ancient Transatlantic films now being put across the B.B.C. television network, for example, "Movie Museum", which many of us regard as absolute rubbish? Will it be improved, or made less lucrative by this legislation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: They stand under the existing law; whereas I am here referring to a new right. They stand in a position whereby various rights exist in the parts of which the films are composed. These will come to an end at various times, depending on the life of the author. It was because of the complexity of this system that it was thought better in future to erect a new right, to which I have been referring in films. For the first time, there will be not only a conglomeration of rights in the parts which go to make up a film, but a new right of 50 years in the film itself.
Technical developments in photocopying have also been responsible for certain provisions in the Bill. Clause 7, subject to certain safeguards, permits the copying and publication of copyright works in libraries and archives. Copying by the permission of the owner, of course, is not an infringement and requires no provision in the Bill. Our object here is to enable librarians to help students and, on occasions, one another by supplying copies of works on their shelves without breach of copyright.
What is permitted here, however, is at the expense of the copyright owner. Every right, as I have said, is a sacrifice from someone else and, therefore, copying must be fairly closely prescribed. I hope that the House will bear that in mind when it considers detailed safeguards, which can more conveniently be discussed when we deal with Clause 7 in Committee.
Part II of the Bill deals with matters deserving of copyright protection other than original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, matters such as sound recordings, films, television, sound broadcasts and the like. I will begin by saying a word about gramophone records, a subject which has excited a certain amount of interest and discussion in many quarters. The record makers enjoy today and under the Bill will continue to enjoy two rights.
The first is a right to prevent the copying of their records and the second is the right to control their public performances. I need not say much about the first, because I think that that right is, and has always been, uncontroversial and it is generally accepted that the record makers should have that right. The second right, to control public performances, is more controversial and, indeed, may originally have been given by accident. Certainly, from time to time it has probably been pressed too far, but the House will remember that, having examined it in detail, the Copyright Committee came down in favour of continuing it, subject to safeguards.
The Bill brings in two special additional factors. The first is that the right to control the public performance of gramophone records will no longer be exercisable in residential premises where no charge for admission is made, nor where the performance is part of an activity by societies not run for profit and having general philanthropic objects. That is a right which is considerably curtailed from that under existing law.
The second factor is that there is an entirely new proposal for the introduction of a Performing Right Tribunal, the object of which is to protect the general public against the abuse of performing right. I will not say any more about that at the moment. I will refer to it later when I deal with the new Performing Right Tribunal.
There is one further gramophone record problem, namely, that which surrounds the question of the licence of right. After the composer has permitted one gramophone record to be made, other manufacturers may record the same composition upon payment of a statutory royalty. Suggestions have been made, and fairly strongly pressed, that this right should be permitted for some forms of music and not for others—some people suggest for light music and not for serious, and others for jazz and not symphonies, or for short-play rather than long-play records.
I have no doubt that we shall have some discussion of these matters during the later stages of the Bill, but I would state my preference now. It is that we should keep this right for all works or for none. I do not believe that the House of Commons can strain its ingenuity to the extent of deciding what is serious or light music, or what is the difference between jazz and symphonies. We can do many things, but this is somewhat outside our orbit. I believe that it should be a case of all or none, and at the moment my preference is for retaining this right in all cases.
I now want to say something about broadcasting and television, which, for rather obvious reasons, were not dealt with in the 1911 Act, First, under the Bill, both sound and television broadcasts are protected against recording otherwise than for private purposes and against rebroadcasting. In the case of television only broadcasting authorities are given a right—for the first time—to control a public performance to a paying audience.
I want to emphasise the limited extent of this control. It has no restrictive effect upon television in the home. That is probably clear, but it is as well to state it very clearly. At one time the control included hotels, bars and clubs, but sports promoters now agree that it should be limited to places where payment for admission is made, and the Bill has already been amended to this effect.
The object of this control over the public performance, in the case of television and where payment is made for admission, is really two-fold. First, it would be somewhat inequitable if cinemas were able to use television programmes free. If they were able to do that, they would be selling something prepared by


somebody else's skill and at somebody else's expense. On that ground alone there is reason in the case for giving this right. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, entertainment providers are more likely to permit the television of their events if there is some control of this nature over the performance of the programme.
The power of control over this public performance lies with the broadcasting authorities. To place it elsewhere—for example, with sports promoters—would mean endless applications to diverse sources before any programme could be performed in public. We have, therefore, concentrated control in the broadcasting authorities.
I now want to say a word about films —and I will return to the points which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) put to me. Films were in their infancy in 1911. Many people contribute to a film; the authors, the composers, the photographers, and the like. Most of these have rights under the law as it now stands, and these rights come to an end at different times. I think that in all cases they are calculated in relation to the life of the author. It is, therefore, very difficult to say when the copyright in a film comes to an end. It does so in different parts at different times. To remedy this state of affairs the Bill provides that all films shall have a copyright of their own of 50 years, normally from the date of registration.
The copyright in the component contributions to the film will continue for all purposes other than the performance of the film, and will expire at the normal period prescribed for their life. That is to say, if a theme song is played it will have its normal copyright apart from the film.
Part IV of the Bill deals with the Performing Right Tribunal. The performing rights of composers and record makers are normally organised through fee-collecting societies, and it is very difficult to see how this could be done by any other method. It is from these fees, collected from those who use the performance, that the composers receive their income—far more so in the case of a musician than from the sale of sheet music. The Copyright Committee felt that when such rights are exercised upon a virtually monopoly basis—and these are

—the public should have a right of appeal either against the refusal to grant a licence to perform at all or if it were felt that the terms demanded were exorbitant.
I emphasise that the Tribunal is relevant only in the case of the fee-collecting society; it is not relevant in the case of an individual composer. Although it would be a rather rare occurrence, if an individual composer elected to strike a bargain of his own, the Tribunal would not come into the matter. If the prospective licensee thought that too hard a bargain was being driven he could go to some other composer. The Tribunal is relevant only because of the essential monopolistic nature of the fee-collecting society.
The Tribunal will thus have jurisdiction over licences issued by the Performing Right Society, which controls virtually all copyright music, and also over the licences by the gramophone makers and broadcasting authorities. Our proposals for setting up a tribunal have been generally welcomed, not only by the music users but by the copyright owners; indeed the Performing Right Society itself, before the introduction of the Bill, pressed for the setting up of an independent body of this kind.
The Bill, naturally, contains a large number of points of interest and importance, for the most part better dealt with in detail when we consider it Clause by Clause. There are such matters as the precise dividing line between the law of copyright and the protection of industrial designs. Most of those points will be better dealt with at a later stage.
Perhaps I should say a word about the scope of the Bill. It differs in this respect from the 1911 Act, which applied to the United Kingdom and also, automatically, to the Colonies, and could be adopted by the self-governing Dominions. All this was before the Statute of Westminster. Circumstances in the self-governing Dominions, and to some extent in the Colonies, have changed markedly since 1911. The new procedure is, therefore, applicable, initially, to the United Kingdom alone.
The Bill provides, however, that it can be extended by Order in Council to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, or any Colony or Protectorate—with limited power for the local legislature to modify its provisions. This is in accordance with modern constitutional practice. A further


provision enables the United Kingdom, by Order in Council, to apply the provisions of the Bill to protect works originating in the self-governing parts of the Commonwealth or works of authors who are nationals or residents in foreign countries in order to ensure reciprocity among the countries of these various Conventions.
As I have said, the Bill covers a large and complex field. It is not without importance in our industrial and social life. It affects many different organisations and large numbers of individuals and confirms or modifies a wide range of rights. In its nature it is difficult to discuss in a wide-ranging Second Reading debate, but I hope I have said enough to indicate the main outline of our proposal, the main points of controversy and to commend the Measure to the House.

Sir Beverley Baxter: I have no great personal interest in this matter, because I dare say that 50 years from now I shall not be interested in what is happening to my writings. I have often wondered, however, and have never been able to find out, why a writer, an artist or performer has a limited copyright in what he produces, whereas a man who buys land or a house has copyright in perpetuity. Would the President of the Board of Trade be good enough to explain the origin of that, and why there is a limit to the ownership of a creative piece of work?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend is not interested, then I hope that posterity will be interested in his work. It is perhaps for that very reason that after a time great works of art pass from the private to the public domain.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is an unusual and pleasurable experience for me to be able to follow the President of the Board of Trade without finding it necessary to offer criticism of him for some positive act of policy or to complain of some neglect of duty on his part. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has given a most lucid explanation of the Bill, and I think we are all indebted to him for the way in which he has explained it to us. In order to encourage him, I might perhaps say at this stage that we welcome the

Bill, and we shall give it a much more cordial reception than we gave to the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman recently introduced.
We welcome the Bill especially since the substantial improvements which were made to it in another place. We welcome it for three main reasons. In the first place, it brings us more into line with international feeling, and enables us to comply in a large measure with the Brussels Convention, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Secondly, by making amendments to our law, we make it easier for the United States to enter into a more general international agreement that has been the case in the past.
Thirdly, we welcome it because it puts into effect many of the recommendations of the Copyright Committee which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), as the President has reminded us, to review the situation in the light of the technical developments which have taken place since the Act of 1911. All of us appreciate the work of that Committee. On behalf of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, I wish to join with the President in thanking Sir Henry Gregory and the members of the Committee for the work they did.
The fact that we shall not vote against this Measure this evening, however, does not mean that it will be given an easy passage through its Committee stage. There are many doubts still to be resolved and, I think, a number of loopholes which have to be filled.
Much of the Bill pleases us. I think it wise of the right hon. Gentleman to propose to set up the Performing Right Tribunal to avoid any possibility of abuse by the fee-collecting societies. I think it proper to give publishers the right to prevent copying of their typographical arrangements. It is good that the borderline between copyright and registered designs should be more clearly defined than at present. And I think it excellent that we should be, as it were, legitimating the use of copyright material for educational purposes. That will remove a hazard to which teachers are now daily subjected, and it is a step which has been, I think, especially welcomed by the various local government organisations.
In Committee we shall seek to try to apply more effectively the basic principle which governs our approach to the Bill. That is the principle that the general good must prevail, and I think that is the effect of the fair dealing Clauses in the 1911 Act. But where there is a conflict of interest we shall put the interest of the creator before the interest of the exploiter. When I say "exploiter "I do not use that term in any aggressive sense. What I have in mind is that if, for example, there is a clash of interest between a composer and a gramophone company we shall be on the side of the composer. If there is a clash between a script writer and a film company we shall be on the side of the script writer. If there is a clash between the working journalist and a newspaper company we shall prefer to protect the interests of the working journalist.
The criticisms which I am going to make of the Bill are all directed to that end because, although I appreciate the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade, I do not think that so far we have reached the reasonable compromise between clashing interests which I hope will emerge in later stages of this Bill. I should like to begin with the position of the journalist who is commissioned to write an article for a newspaper. I understand that now he has full copyright in that work, but in Clause 4 (2, b) the Government propose that if a commissioned work is created in certain conditions—conditions which will often preclude the making of a written contract which would safeguard the writer's interest—the writer's copyright shall in some measure pass to the commissioner.
I believe that to deprive the author of a commissioned work of even part of his copyright, except with his express consent, is unjustified. It was, I believe, a common law right before it became a statutory one. I hope that this House will always look very jealously on any attempt to erode in any way the common law rights of the subject and will only agree to such a step for the gravest and most compelling of public reasons. The effect of that Clause is, as it were, to split the copyright between the person commissioning the work and the writer who is actually writing the article. The person commissioning the article will have the copyright without express assignment to him in so far as it relates to the publication

of the work in any newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical. The author, on the other hand, has the remainder of the copyright that is to say he retains his rights in any book or film which may be based upon his work.
I do not think the British Joint Copyright Council exaggerates when it describes that change as being most retrograde. I think it wrong that an article which is bought cheaply should become a source of great profit. I think it unfair that the rights of the person commissioning the work should not be restricted to the paper for which the work was commissioned and to which the payment agreed related. I think it is inequitable, because the circumstances in which an article is commissioned often militate against a contract being made.
For example, if a journalist finds himself in the middle of a South American revolution or involved in a flood disaster in India, there is no time to cable backwards and forwards so that a contract can be made which will reserve the journalist's full copyright in the work he is about to create. I suggest that copyright should be lost only by express agreement on the part of the parties to the transaction.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department put the matter very clearly in another place when he said that of the parties in such a transaction it is probably the author rather than the business house which is in greater need of protection. That is what we are trying to bring about in our attitude to the Bill. We say that there is a great difference between contracting in and contracting out in respect of commissioned works.
My own feeling at this stage is that there is a difference between the position of a journalist who is writing a commissioned article and that of a journalist who is working under a contract of service to a newspaper company, but I know that some of my hon. Friends think that the same protection should be given to the second type of journalist I mentioned, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who has great experience of newspaper management, has a point of view on this matter which is more radical than my own. I very much hope


that he will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, at a later stage.
The second point that I want to make deals with photographs. I cannot believe that it is good to reduce the period of copyright from fifty years to only twentyfive years, and I base my objection to that change on two main grounds. The first is from the point of view of the public. The House should remember that it is a long-established custom of the trade, which has been endorsed by the courts on a number of occasions, that, although the copyright of a photograph rests in the person who commissions the work, the negative remains the property of the photographer who takes the picture. If the Bill is passed in this form, the copyright will cease twenty-five years after the date of publication, and the photographer will then be able to make any use which we wants to make of the picture which has been taken.
That could be a source of embarrassment to firms which have had photographs taken of secret processes in their factories, or it could be embarrassing to individuals whose proud parents had photographs taken of them in their earliest days reclining on a leopard skin in a state of some undress. I think that none of us would welcome the possibility that pictures of that kind could suddenly be made available to newspapers or used in other ways.
The second ground is that this proposal is even more objectionable from the photographer's point of view. I have no doubt that hon. Members read the letter in The Times of 21st December from A. F. Bucknell, Secretary of the Institute of British Photographers, who told us that many photographers specialise in particular classes of photographic work—nature photographs, anthropology, scenery, historic buildings, objects of antiquarian interest and other subjects of that kind.
They build up valuable libraries, which are libraries of continuing value to the person who owns the copyright in the photographs, but to create those libraries is a slow and extremely expensive process, and they call for endless patience on the part of the photographer. For instance, it would be necessary to be prepared to sacrifice several nights in order

to get a picture of a badger leaving its set. I am afraid that photographers will not be so eager to take photographs of that kind if they do not get rather more protection than is being afforded to them in the Bill.
Indeed, it is conceivable that the income of some photographers who have been building their libraries over a long period might well be very nearly halved by the fact that the protection is to be for only twenty-five years instead of for fifty years. I cannot see why a photographer should have less than half the protection which is afforded to the creator of a painting, a drawing, or a piece of sculpture. Instead of having protection for only twenty-five years after the work is made, those creators are to have protection for fifty years after their death.
Unfortunately, the Copyright Committee did not argue that point. The Committee dealt with it in two paragraphs. In paragraph 311 it explained why the matter came within its terms of reference; and then, in paragraph 312, the Committee said quite baldly:
It seems to us that a period of 50 years is unduly long for the protection of photographs and we recommend that this period should be reduced to a period which would terminate 25 years from the 1st January following the date upon which the photograph was taken.
The Committee advanced no reason why this period of twenty-five years is preferable to one of fifty years, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us why there is this discrimination against photographers. I hope later to move an Amendment to increase the period from twenty-five years to fifty years.
It is an easy transition from photographs to films and to the provisions of Clause 13. I got the impression from the President's remarks that he believes that the Bill has simplified the situation, but I am afraid that the provisions relating to films have created a whole new field in which confusion can develop. For the purpose of a film the copyright in all the constituent parts thereof—that is to say, the story or the music—will expire with the expiration of the copyright in the film, that is to say, fifty years after the film was made, notwithstanding that as separate works the copyright would continue in them until fifty years after the death of the author or composer in the case of the book on which


the film was based or the music which was used.
It may well be that when the copyright in a film expires and writers are unable to continue to draw their royalties, the owner of the film will continue to make money out of it, without having to hand over any to the author or the composer. That seems to me to be an inequitable proposition which is not in keeping with Articles 7 and 14 of the Brussels Convention. That is a point of detail about which we could argue at a later stage.
I wish to turn to Clause 8 which, among other things, provides, as the President said, for the continuation of the present compulsory licence system in respect of mechanical recordings.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of films, would he be good enough to make clear what he proposes that the Bill should do about films, and what he would put in place of the fifty years' contract?

Mr. Greenwood: All I can say at this stage is that it seems inequitable to me that when the producer and the owner of a film can continue to make a profit out of the work, which stems from the brains of the composer and the author, they themselves should be debarred from profiting from the exhibition of that film. I do not want to become tied down too much to details at this stage, but that is the basis of the criticism which we are making.
I was beginning to speak about the present compulsory licence system in respect of mechanical recordings. At present, if the owner of the mechanical rights has once given his permission for a recording to be made, any other person wishing to record that work has an automatic licence to do so if he gives certain notice to the owner of the mechanical rights and pays a statutory royalty. I think everybody will agree that that is a system which worked well in the past when only a small number of manufacturers—four or five—were making only 10-in. or 12-in, records, but technical developments have meant that longer-playing records are taking the place of the old I0-in. and 12-in. records, while the advent of tape recorders has enabled

many new manufacturers to enter the recording field.
It is interesting to note that when the Copyright Committee was sitting there were only five major recording companies —that is to say, companies which were issuing catalogues of their productions. By 1955 the figure had risen to eighteen, and a further sixty firms were operating in a small way without issuing catalogues of their works. There is thus much less control over manufacturers than was the case a few years ago.
Some of the new manufacturers who are entering the field are inevitably mushroom firms and some of them are probably unsatisfactory. I would suggest to the House that the composer or any other owner of mechanical rights— and it may not be the same person—must have the same rights as everyone else, that is to say, the right to refuse to do business with a firm which he believes to be unsatisfactory. Established firms are well-versed in the rules of copyright and have special departments handling agreements of this kind, but the new firms which are growing up have not that wealth of experience, and they may fail to give the prescribed notice, or to pay the prescribed royalty at the prescribed time or in the prescribed manner.
Naturally, a copyright owner will not normally refuse permission for his work to be recorded. The more his work is used the better financially it is for him, but I think that he must have the right to refuse to allow his work to be recorded if he regards the firm which wants to do it as being unsatisfactory for any reason known to him.
There are two other points in the Clause which, perhaps, I may touch upon briefly. The first arises out of the compulsory licence, and relates to the production of musical plays in this country. I understand that a musical play, when it is produced in the United States, probably plays there for a year before coming to this country. If that play is to succeed here as a commercial venture when it arrives, it is most important that the public should not be sick to death of the music upon which it is based because they have heard it over and over again on records played in the "Housewives' Choice" programme or in other ways. Once a recording is licensed in the United


States, the mechanical right owner cannot compel any other person not to produce and sell the records here. He has to give them a licence.
In the past that has worked reasonably well because there has been a limited number of manufacturing firms and they have been prepared to enter into reasonable arrangement with the owners of the copyright in this country, but with these new mushroom firms growing up, it is not so easy to control the situation. Once one firm breaks away from the general agreement there will be every inducement for others to do so, and the production of musical plays here will become increasingly difficult.
The second point is that dealing with a statutory royalty, which I hope that we shall discuss on a later date. Hon. Members have no doubt seen the complaint of Sir Arthur Bliss in The Times, and the later suggestion by Mr. Benjamin Britten and others that
…the provisions of Section 8 of the Bill should be confined solely to records whose playing time does not exceed that of the average record available before the long-playing record was introduced—namely, eight minutes or four minutes a record side. This would leave the composer free to agree with the manufacturers of these longer records an equitable royalty commensurate with the playing time of the record.
That has been the case with some companies in the past, but with the growth in the number of companies it is going to be much more difficult, and I hope that we shall be able to improve these provisions during the Committee stage.
My next point is another which affects composers, and it is one which, unfortunately, is dismissed in the Report of the Copyright Committee as "a comparatively small matter." It relates to ephemeral recordings as they are called, and is dismissed in the Report of the Copyright Committee in two paragraphs. This is a matter of some importance in the field of copyright. Ephemeral recordings are the recordings which the broadcasting authority makes to facilitate a subsequent broadcast. No one would question the need for these recordings to be made, but I think that the extension of the word "ephemeral" to cover a month is rather stretching the meaning of language, and I hope that we can later discuss some other period of protection.
This work is authorised by the Brussels Convention, but, here again, I think that the Bill is going rather further than was envisaged at the time of the Convention itself, At present, the author or composer has two rights. The first is the right to authorise the recording, and the second is the right to authorise the broadcast. Those two rights may not necessarily belong to the same person. It seems to me to be unfair that because one person has authorised the making of a broadcast, automatically the right to make the recording should follow, although it is not necessarily the same person who benefits from the two rights.
There has been in the past an amicable arrangement between the B.B.C. and organisations dealing with the mechanical rights of musicians by which a fee was paid for both rights. I understand that a similar agreement is likely with the programme contractors on commercial television—if, indeed, it has not already been made. But this Bill gives the broadcasting authorities the right to make ephemeral recordings without any licence or payment, and they thus get two services for the price of one. I really cannot see why the broadcasting authority should be enabled to "do down" the owner of mechanical rights in this way, just because the owner of performing rights has agreed to the broadcast taking place. As Sir Arthur Bliss pointed out in The Times, the payment which the B.B.C. has made in the past has done something to compensate composers for the loss of revenue from sales of sheet music. So I am afraid that Clause 6 will have to be amended at a later stage.
One other provision which I wish to touch upon is that relating to the relay companies. That provision, at the moment, is, I believe, another example of the way in which, no doubt quite unintentionally, we are eating away the rights of the composers. Here again, I think that the Copyright Committee did the problem less than justice. There is only one paragraph—paragraph 120—which relates to the relay companies, and in that it is stated:
We do not suggest any alteration in the present relationship between the Postmaster-General, the B.B C. and the relay companies.
But under the Bill we are now going to say that the operations of the relay companies do not constitute public performances. That is a point of view which,


at the moment, I do not feel prepared to accept.
Under the existing law, it is the generally accepted view—and I think that it is one advanced by Mr. Skone James, the editor of the leading authority on copyright law—that the operations of a broadcast relay system are public performances and in the light of that interpretation the Performing Right Society, for example, has entered into many contracts with the Crown Agents for the Colonies and commercial owners of relay stations abroad.
The President of the Board of Trade rightly reminds us that the Bill makes provision for the Act to be extended in its operation to colonial authorities outside this country. Here in Britain, the B.B.C. has paid a fee on the basis of all holders of Post Office licences, whether or not the holders were subscribers to a relay service. Abroad, however, in the case of Hong Kong, for example, the Government there repudiates liability for those receiving the local relay station. In the case of Malta, there is, I understand, only a relay system available. It seems, therefore, that relay systems at the moment have a considerable importance in the world of copyright.
If the Bill is passed unamended, and the operations of relay stations do not constitute public performances, there will be a serious loss of revenue to authors and composers. From my own reading of the International Convention, I believe that that is not in accordance with Article 11 of the Brussels Convention.
Those are the main points upon which I wanted to touch, and which I wished to bring to the attention of the House. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to raise other points of criticism. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some idea of the lines along which the minds of his right hon. Friend and himself are working on this subject, and whether the Committee stage is likely to be a rewarding and satisfying experience for those of us who will be taking part in it.

4.31 p.m.

Sir David Gammans: This is a very technical and complicated Bill, as the President of the Board of Trade has said. It is not easy to define a rigid frontier between matters which we ought

to discuss on Second Reading and those which are more appropriate to Committee, but there are four matters which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) which are of considerable concern to the British Joint Copyright Council. This is a very representative body and has many constituent members. It consists of the Composers' Guild, the Institute of Journalists, the League of Dramatists, the Mechanical Right Society, the Performing Right Society, and the Society of Authors.
The first point with which that body is concerned relates to Clause 2 (5) and Clause 46 (3). As the hon. Member for Rossendale has suggested, these Clauses virtually say that the operations of a broadcast relay station do not constitute a performance. I think that the reason why my right hon. Friend has followed this line in the Bill is that until now the arrangement has worked reasonably well. What I do not think he has envisaged are the developments which are almost bound to take place in the years ahead. It is 45 years since we last had a Copyright Act, and I dare say that my right hon. Friend hopes it will be another 45 years before we have another. I certainly do. At all events, all sorts of things can happen during that period.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, at present the Council has a very satisfactory arrangement with the B.B.C. because it understands, rightly, that where there are subscribers to a relay service those subscribers must have had a Post Office licence in advance. Under the existing law, it is easy for the Council to make satisfactory arrangements with overseas Governments and commercial companles overseas.
However, I foresee that, if the Bill passes into law in its present form, there are almost bound to be complications and difficulties. In the next 45 years we can certainly expect an extension of broadcasting in this country. We can probably look forward before very long to the ending of the B.B.C. monopoly in sound, as we have seen happen in the case of television. Broadcasting stations will be developed all over the Commonwealth and all over the world, and new technical processes at present not even envisaged will certainly come into operation.
I suggest that it would be impossible for the Council to negotiate with the various commercial and public bodies overseas if the Bill says from the beginmng that the operations of a broadcast relay station do not constitute a performance. It seems to me that, by saying that, we shall have swept the ground from under its feet before it has entered into negotiation.
I believe that this fact was realised when the Bill was considered in another place, because there the Government spokesman made it clear that the Government were considering the matter very carefully. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that the Government will be prepared to table some Amendments in Committee to remove the fears which are being expressed on both sides of the House and which I believe all hon. Members feel as strongly as I do.
I should also like to support the hon. Member for Rossendale in his interpretation of Clause 4. As the Bill stands, a newspaper commissioning an article will be able to republish it in any newspaper or magazine without the author's permission and without paying him anything at all. The only share of the copyright which will remain in the author's hands is the copyright on a film or on a book. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Rossendale. I believe that this provision should be extended beyond the free-lance journalist to the journalist who works full-time for a newspaper. It seems to me that it is a work of creation on his part and that he is entitled to the full protection which he can get under the Measure. In fact, I do not believe it is possible to define a boundary between the working journalist and the free-lance journalist. Once we get involved in defining who is a freelance journalist and who is a working journalist we shall get bogged down in such a mass of detail that the whole thing will have broken down before we know where we are.
It may be argued that the journalist ought to protect himself by an agreement. That may be true, but, as everybody knows, many newspaper articles are commissioned by telephone. As the hon. Member said, they may be commissioned by telegram from India. It is no good suggesting that one solitary individual

sunk in the depths of India can protect himself against a newspaper here in London when all the odds are loaded on the side of the newspaper which has commissioned the article.
My right hon. Friend is at this moment engaged in tackling monopolies in another Measure. I suggest that here is a case where the man who needs protection is the journalist rather than the newspaper proprietor. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some indication of the Government's feeling about the matter. If he can, it might save a considerable amount of tabling of Amendments and discussion in Committee.
I want also to say a word about Clause 6 (7) which deals with the ephemeral recording. An "ephemeral recording" is an odd expression. Apparently it is something which does not last more than 28 days. I do not know what is to prevent a broadcasting authority from making another recording on the twentyseventh day and then carrying on ad infinitum. It seems to me that the whole business could be dropped altogether. I cannot see anything in favour of it in its present form.
Clause 8 deals with another matter which was raised by the hon. Member. As soon as a composer has given authority for a gramophone company to record his vote—[Laughter]—work, then, automatically, anybody else can do it as well if they give notice and pay the necessary royalty. If this is to be continued in these days when there are many broadcasting, gramophone and recording companies, and when we have coming in recording tape as well as long-playing records, it seems to me that it is rather a dangerous principle for the House to accept. After all, it is no good to suggest that the composer or author is likely to be dog-in-the-manger about it, because the more companies to which he gives the right to reproduce his work, the greater his income. What is most undesirable, however, is that the right should be automatic without any regard for the standing of the gramophone company, its financial resources or anything else.
These are the only four points which I wanted to raise. I think it is quite clear that there has been no party division on the main provisions of the Bill. In fact, I welcome the main provisions just as


much as does the hon. Member for Rossendale. I hope that, if possible, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give some indication of the Government's views.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Like the hon. Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), I welcome the Bill generally and I hope that it will go through all its stages quickly in order that we may ratify the Brussels Convention and the U.N.E.S.C.O. agreement which the United States has signed. If, therefore, the only points which I wish to make are critical of the Bill, I hope this will not in any way be taken as a sign of general opposition to the Measure.
I should like, without arguing the case, as it has already been so forcibly and fully argued, to support the points which have already been made about Clause 4. The position under Clause 4 as it stands is most undesirable. It is quite clear that there is general feeling about this provision in all quarters of the House. I add my appeal to that of the hon. Member for Hornsey to the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that the Government will amend Clause 4. This would, I am sure, give general satisfaction and would expedite the further progress of the Bill very considerably.
The other point I want to raise refers to the change which comes about as a result of the Bill because part of the 1911 Act is not re-enacted. That part relates to the provision under which full copyright ceases to exist 25 years after the death of the author or 30 years if the work in question was written before the passage of the 1911 Act. When such a period has passed, it is possible under the existing Act, and remains so until this Bill is passed, for another publisher other than the author's own publisher to produce a cheap, popular edition even if he cannot reach agreement with the original publisher, on a payment of a 10 per cent. commission on the published price of the popular edition to the estate of the deceased author.
Under the Bill that will no longer be possible. Full copyright will exist for 50 years after the death of the author, and I think it should be realised that a period

of 50 years after the death of the author means, generally speaking, a period more like 75 or 80 years after the work in question has been written. There is no doubt that this period of 50 years after the death of an author gives a much longer period of copyright than the United States period of 50 years after the date of first publication of the work.
It would be highly undesirable to change the present position. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale laid down as a general principle that where a choice had to be made, it was desirable to protect the work of a creator rather than the exploiter. That is a very sound principle, but I do not think that to object to this extension of copyright in any way conflicts with that principle.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would be impossible to adhere to the new form of the Berne Convention unless we gave up the last 25 years.

Mr. Jenkins: I realise that that is one of the complications arising from this question. I was first trying to point out the undesirability, as I regard it, of this new provision. If the undesirability is generally accepted by all, including the Government, we can then consider whether, for reasons outside our control, we should none the less accept this provision. There is no doubt that it is highly undesirable. I am not sure at this stage whether the Government are going to rest their defence on the position of the Bill in relation to the Berne Convention, or whether they are going to defend the Bill on its merits. Without knowing, I am bound to say something about the merits of the case.
I do not think that to stand on the 1911 position would in any way damage the interests of authors. One is, after all, only discussing the period between 25 and 50 years after the death of the authors in question. But if one is dealing with their estates, and not with the individuals concerned, it is by no means clear that the estates would do less well under the existing provision than they would under the new one. An author's estate could often do better as a result of the publication by a rival firm of publishers of a cheap, popular edition of the author's work, than if the rights were to remain


with his original publisher who might not specialise in cheap editions and who would be unable to bring out such cheap editions but who did not want anyone else to do so.
I think that authors' estates have done very well out of this arrangement. Oscar Wilde earned no less than £3,500 from one British publisher under this 10 per cent. rule. Therefore, what I am suggesting is not in any way inimical to the interests of authors or even the estates of dead authors.
If one is going to accept the position as it is laid down in the Bill, without question it is going to be very difficult to apply. It is already the case that works of a number of authors who have been dead for more than 25 years, but who have not been dead for more than 50 years, are being published in these cheap editions. For example, Henry James and D. H. Lawrence are in this category at the present time. A substantial number of other important authors will come into this category in the very near future. Arnold Bennett and Saki come out of full copyright this year. In 1957, Lytton Strachey and Jerome K. Jerome will come out of full copyright, and in 1958 so will Thomas Hardy, Galsworthy and several other authors.
The Government cannot adopt the attitude that these will be retrospective, in the sense that in the case of authors whose works are already being published in cheap editions such arrangement will have to cease as soon as the Bill becomes law. But what is the position going to be about authors who have been dead for some time, where arrangements have been made for cheap publications, but where that would not be possible if one were to stand on the letter of the Bill as it exists at present? Even if it is not possible, whether for reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) or whether for other reasons, for the Government to allow the position to revert to that under the 1911 Act in this respect, the Government can at least make a compromise by which the new Measure will apply only to the works of authors dying after it comes into operation. In that way there could be a reasonable compromise.
Unless that is done, apart from the considerable undesirability of preventing the

works of authors of note reaching a wide market and becoming more cheaply available in this country, we may be at some disadvantage in competitive markets abroad. American copyright will be less long lived in this respect and the Americans will be able to bring out cheap editions of English authors where we are not able to do so. I believe that Kipling is already out of full copyright in the United States, whereas here his works will not even be out of half copyright for some time. Kipling is an interesting example. There has been no cheap edition of his works.

Mr. Hyde: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an exceptional case in that the Kipling family, the representatives of Kipling, I think probably following Kipling's own desires, have always been opposed to the publication of his works in a cheap edition.

Mr. Jenkins: I agree that his case may be exceptional, but what the hon. Gentleman says underlines the point. One can argue that under the Bill it will be possible for someone who wishes to publish a cheap, popular edition of Kipling, or any other author, to negotiate an arrangement with the original publishers. We must guard against a position in which the publishers might want to do that but it might be possible for the executors to be unduly restrictive. I suggest that that is the position in connection with Kipling's works.
The President of the Board of Trade, in his pleasantly rounded reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter), suggested that at a certain time works passed from the private domain into the public domain. I think that has occurred with Kipling. It is highly undesirable that a restriction should be applied to prevent his works being more freely available in a cheap edition.
This is not a purely theoretical point. There is a practical point involved, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will apply his mind to it. I hope that he will be able to say that we can go back to the 1911 position which, I think, is satisfactory in this respect. I hope that, at least, he will be able to accept the compromise that the new position suggested in the Bill will apply only in the case of authors who die after the Bill becomes law.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed and to say how glad I am that it has been said from both sides of the House that this is a nonparty Measure. In that context I wish to support very strongly what was said by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) about photographers. Before I continue I must disclose my interest. I am a very humble member of the Royal Photographic Society. I might be described as an amateur photographer who trles to pay for a very expensive hobby by the occasional sale of a photograph. I am, therefore, speaking this evening more for the men in my own category than for the professionals to whom photography represents a rather precarious and highly competitive livelihood.
Clause 3 (1, a) lays it down that photographs come within the definition of "artistic work," yet subsection (4, b) excludes photographs from the fifty-year copyright. This seems to me pretty contradictory. I know that the position has been dealt with in a small way by the Lords Amendment which said that there should be a copyright of 25 years after publication, but it will be extremely difficult to prove the year of publication.
The hon. Member for Rossendale mentioned the photograph taken of a child and reproduced later. I should like to give another example of the photograph taken of a young and ambitious man at an extremely gay party. That is something which perhaps he would not like to be published later on. Eventually the man may become a famous public figure. It would not be to his liking if an unscrupulous periodical got hold of the photograph of him having a gay time and published it against his will. In an example such as that it will be extremely difficult to prove the date when the photograph was taken.
Why should films and photographs be treated differently from works of art? My right hon. Friend said that he could not make any distinction between the jazz record and the symphony, and that they must be treated in the same way. They are far more different than the good still photograph and the good film. Again, suppose a still photograph is taken from

a film and reproduced. Will that come under the 25 or the 50-year copyright?
Mention has been made of the expense to which some specialist photographers go to build up a library which may not be of use for a number of years. I have a special example in mind. It is that of Mr. Tom Weir of Glasgow who, following Shipton's discoveries, fitted out a small private expedition to the Himalayas and built a very fine collection of colour photographs from which he hoped to derive an income for the rest of his life. His speciality is photographing mountain scenery, flora, etc., mainly in places which others have not yet reached. It is obvious that an expedition of that sort would be extremely difficult and expensive to organise. It is unfair that such a man should be deprived of his copyright after 25 years.
The President of the Board of Trade said that both sides should be protected. and I agree. The example I quoted earlier would be a good illustration of that. What is the situation with regard to Crown copyright? Hon. Members may have seen a very clever advertisement for a certain baby food in which are used the words, "Fit for royal babies." The time might come when a totally unsuitable photograph might be reproduced at the top of one of these advertisements. That, I think, would be a grave breach of public good taste and would probably in no way meet the wishes of the photographer who has taken the picture.
I do not see why photographers should not be considered to be artists. Many of us think that our efforts to produce something artistic are far more difficult than those of painters. An artist goes to a place like Cornwall where he sees a beautiful chapel, with a valley and hills. He paints a picture of that, and it is so easy for him to leave out the public telephone kiosk which has just been put in front of the chapel, thanks to the good work of the Postmaster-General. A photographer who wishes to make an attractive picture of that scene has to get rid of the kiosk in some way. Perhaps my right hon. Friend might include that operation under the heading "mechanical means" to which he referred earlier. None the less, I maintain that we should be considered to be artists. Therefore, I hope that this point will be considered very closely in Committee. The many


photographers whom I know feel that it is most unfair that they should have been singled out for only 25 years' protection, especially when films are protected for 50 years.

4.59 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I begin straight away by declaring an interest in that I am a director of a newspaper and periodical publishing house and have some connection, also, with a programme company dealing with commercial television. My colleague in both those enterprises will doubtless disagree with almost everything I have to say. None the less, it is important that I should make it quite clear that I have some interest in the Bill and its future.
I support what was said by the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter). He and I, I know, have almost utterly opposite views about the rights of inherited property. He believes to a very large degree in inherited property. As a Socialist I have different views about it, but I agree with him absolutely when he says that there seems to be no logic at all in the way in which we treat the creator of an original work.
It would, I think, be an advantage for anyone trying to choose his father in the future not to choose an Ibsen, but to choose a "Master Builder," because his "Master Builder" father will hand down permanent property of considerably more value than an Ibsen could hand down to his descendants. I do not understand why it is that 50 years after a man's death we should expropriate from his descendants a property which he has, very properly, left to them. I am sorry to see that this Bill, which I admire in many respects, continues a piece of harshness towards the descendants of, in particular, the literary artist.
The law, both as it exists and as it is proposed to be altered, does not treat all artists alike. If a man hands down the rights in, let us say, a poem, the descendants lose those rights 50 years after his death, but if he is a maker of silverware and he hands down to his children some beautiful examples of his work, they will continue to own them in perpetuity or until such time as they decide voluntarily to dispossess themselves of them. I hope that at some time we shall decide to

protect the originator, that we shall at last protect the author in a proper fashion.
The argument has been advanced this afternoon that the public benefits to some degree, because works get into the public domain under the present system. Does the public benefit to that degree? Is it not the publisher who benefits first, or is it not the film producer who snatches a script, as it were, out of the air and uses it free? Is not the man who benefits the man who wants to put on a musical comedy, who can adapt an original work without having to pay copyright fees for it? I should not be at all surprised if it was a descendant of someone whose work had passed into the public domain who first said that Barabbas was a publisher.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) dealt with the position of the photographer. This Measure will work very harshly on the photographer who works in the main for newspapers and periodicals, and who has built up over a long period a specialist library. Newspapers know that they can go to these specialists to get pictures dealing with any special subject; for example, the editor of a newspaper who wants a photograph of a ship launched at the beginning of this century knows immediately where to get it, namely, from the specialist photographer who has invested his work and a good deal of capital—probably the whole of his life in building up such an extremely valuable service.
Such a specialist photographer hopes to continue with the library he has built up, but now, at the end of 25 years, he is to lose his rights in many of his photographs. He has worked, in my view, as hard in the preparation of this service as has the man who has written, let us say, the text or the caption which accompanies a picture. The caption might be quite a long one, almost a pamphlet. The descendants of the man who writes the pamphlet will enjoy the rights for 50 years, while the descendants of the man who has worked hard to collect the photographs lose theirs 25 years after his death.
There seems to be no logic and no justice in this situation. I am concerned about it for this reason. My interest in this Bill, and the reason I support it, is my desire that it shall be the protector at all times of the creator. My


hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) is right when he says that that is the paramount interest. We have seen too often the case of a man who has been trying to get published a story, a book, or a piece of music; such a young man is flattered, overwhelmed, by the fact that his work is accepted and is going to be published; he then rushes into a contract which is a bad and harsh contract. I know that he ought to consult an agent or a solicitor, but he does not do either of those things. We have all heard over and over again stories of the way in which men have sold for a few pounds a piece of work which has made for a publisher thousands or, indeed, hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The artist, by definition, is not a businessman, and it is the artist I want to protect. The artist should be protected as far as possible, not from the rapacity of the publisher—I do not think it is that but from the natural desire of the publisher to get the best of the deal that he possibly can.
I come now to Clause 4. I remember the time when the Parliamentary Secretary was enjoying, with me, his frolic in Fleet Street, which he graced at that time, if I may say so, with some distinguished contributions to the newspapers which I then managed. He would have been horrified if it had then been suggested that practically all his rights should be taken away from him because he was working under a service contract. Fortunately, he worked for a benign manager who saw to it that those rights were not taken from him. It is true also that his work was unsaleable in any other place than where he published it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recollect that at the time of entering into this agreement to which he refers he pointed out that the remuneration was modest for the quality of the articles he expected, and suggested it might be increased if we got on well together. Unfortunately, we did not get on well enough for that result to come about.

Sir L. Plummer: Of course, these things will happen. It is the tug of war in Fleet Street. I am sure that both of us enjoyed it very much, and I am sure that those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and other readers who can remember the hon. Gentleman's contributions

and compare them with those which are appearing today will regret his disappearance from the newspaper.
I was dealing with Clause 4 and the position under it of the work of a writer for newspapers, periodicals and magazines. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale has said, we want the publisher under those circumstances to "contract in" It is too much to say that the syndication rights of an article or a news story contributed by the writer should vest in the newspaper, unless, of course, the man wants to sell those syndication rights to the newspaper or wants to participate in the result of the syndication sales. I would like to see the Bill altered, and I hope that my hon. Friend will introduce an Amendment to this effect, to see that the only rights which the writer automatically surrenders are the rights of first reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical for which the article or story is designed.
In America, for example, the market for good, original work is very considerable and very lucrative. It would be no exaggeration at all to say that a man who can write a good, informative article on, let us say, so esoteric a subject as trout fishing, for which he can get paid here only in guineas, can measure his rewards in American publications in hundreds of dollars. In my view, it is too much that a man should be at the mercy of the newspaper, periodical or magazine as to whether he receives any significant share of the results of the syndication of such an article, or, indeed, of any other article.
It is not only in that respect that I want to see the Bill altered. I have in mind also the case of a man who writes for a newspaper and finds that the practice of what is called "milking the copy", which I will explain later, works against him. Newspapers in this country employ journalists who work for other newspapers all over the country to send them in copy which they gather from their own local newspapers. There is, therefore, a constant raid being made on the original work of other people. Because this benefits newspapers in general, no particular objection is taken to it by proprietors.
I take very strong objection to anybody lifting the property of anyone else, and in particular to the journalist, who may be a staff contributor, a man on the payroll, and not a free-lance journalist, finding


that, whether he likes it or not, his contribution to his newspaper is lifted and published by another without any payment to him. The Institute of Journalists has for a long time protested against this treatment of the writer. I hope that, later, we will have an opportunity of putting its point of view.
Clause 5 (5, b) deals with infringements of copyright in public places. I suggest that it opens the door very wide to evasions. The Clause provides that sub-section (5) describing the infringements of copyright, shall not apply where somebody
gave the permission"—
for a performance
gratuitously, or for a consideration which was only nominal or (if more than nominal) did not exceed a reasonable estimate of the expense to be incurred by him in consequence of the use of the place for the performance.
This opens a very wide field of evasion.
All that a man who offends has to say is that he did not make any money out of the infringement, or did not intend to do so. In fact, he might have made a great deal of money out of the infringement but, presumably, if he says that he did not intend to do so, he would be in a strong position. What rights would the author then have of being able to collect what is his due as a result of the infringement?
George Bernard Shaw, who would never allow any charitable organisation to perform any of his works free because, he said, that would bankrupt him, would have been staggered at the suggestion that somebody should take one of his plays and put it on in the village hall without paying him the necessary three guineas, on the basis that the organisation did not propose to make any money out of it or did not think that it would do so.
Clause 6 (3) says:
(3) No fair dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work shall constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of conveying news of current events to the public in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or by means of broadcasting, or in a cinematograph film, and is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment.
Surely, the word "reasonable" is needed here. Is it to be argued that as a result of desiring to publish a news story or to make a cinematograph film, the copyrighted work of somebody else should be

used simply because it illustrates the point that the newspaper or film is trying to make? Surely it can be only a reasonable quotation, otherwise the whole of a man's work can be taken in this way by some-body who has no right to it.
For example, I should think that under this system a whole poem by Kipling— for instance "If", not that I like it, but simply as an example—could be used over and over again to support the flagging spirits of unsuccessful politicians in their disappointments over an Election, or it could be used to sustain a Prime Minister who found himself in a jam in a cinematograph film illustrating that jam. Rudyard Kipling would never allow a newspaper to publish two lines from a poem of his without payment for it. He was a man who saw to it that practically never a word of his was printed free.
By the proposed Clause, however, Rudyard Kipling's poem "If" could be published practically in its entirety. Perhaps the last two lines could be left out, which would in any case improve the poem. It might then be argued, that this was a fair dealing. I am, of course, exaggerating the case. Nevertheless, it is my view that one must be careful of this business of fair dealing for the purpose of conveying news of current affairs.
I am worried about Clause 18 (3), which says that unless the owner of a copyright can become aware of an infringement within a period of three years, he is to lose his rights. What is the reason for this? By nature, many journalists and writers are peripatetic. They are constantly travelling all over the world. The hon. Member for South-gate and myself have gone through their expense accounts too often not to know that this is true. Many of them are out of touch with the kind of papers, magazines and periodicals which would be likely to take their work without permission. It is somewhat hard on these men, who, by the nature of their occupation, are travelling the world, that a period of three years should be used against them, as it were. I should have thought that seven years was a much more reasonable period for this kind of protection to the author.
On the whole, this is a good Bill. It does not go far enough, but I never think that anything the President of the Board of Trade produces ever does go far enough, and so I have to accept that this


goes a little further in the interests of justice than the last Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. We shall give it our support, but we shall do our best to improve it in Committee, not for the purpose of making party points but in the interest of preserving at all times the interests of the writer, the musician, and indeed of the artist generally.

5.16 p.m.

Sir Beverley Baxter: It is not very often that we pay compliments across the Floor of the House, but I am much gratified to the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) for his kindly references towards me. It recalls the day when we were colleagues in the same newspaper enterprise.
A Second Reading debate allows a somewhat wide range of discussion. It is not very often in this House that the artist, the expressionist, comes under the gimlet brains of both sides of the Chamber: therefore I want to say one or two things, because I do not think we shall have another opportunity for some time.
The politician, if I may use the word externally, may say that the artists and expressionists are not numerous enough in number to matter certainly their votes do not matter. But if they chose to exert the power of the written and the spoken word, the power of caricature and the power of argument in print, no Government could stand against them, not even this extraordinarily popular Government which is now in office.
Therefore, I warn my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that while he is sitting in comparative security at present, if he does not think more kindly of those who live by expressing the inner thoughts and dreams of mankind even he may be in danger of being relegated to the back benches where, if that happens, I hope he will join those who would abolish hanging.
The basic absurdity of saying that a man who creates something enduring from his brain shall have only a limited financial interest from it when it belongs to him is utterly unsound. For instance, let us consider the case of that great Member of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). My right hon. Friend writes his manuscripts. In time they are

turned into books and the books are published. He is heavily taxed, and rightly so, upon them. In time, his family and his descendants may come upon hard days, but the rights from his books will have expired. They can sell the physical thing—the manuscripts—as mementos or relics, but what he has created from his brain cannot bring financial tribute to his family.
The right in the physical thing lives on: the reward for the spiritual does not, for, by Acts of Parliament, there is a limit to the proper reward for what a man creates with his mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) knows the case of Oscar Wilde. Any publisher today can publish an edition of Oscar Wilde's works without paying any royalties to Oscar Wilde's family. His first son died, but his second son, as my hon. Friend knows, is still alive. He is a man, not of humble circumstances, but who certainly does not live in an extravagant way. He is not a man of great talent. A publisher can publish an edition of Oscar Wilde's works and not pay one penny to the estate. What is basically right about that? Oscar Wilde's manuscripts constitute property. and property is regarded as immortal, but what the artist creates is not.
There are the Gi1bert and Sullivan opera rights. They are running out. I do not know anything about the descendants of Gi1bert and Sullivan. Gilbert and Sullivan added greatly to the gaiety of the nation. They have been a great asset. Suppose Gilbert had descendants. Gi1bert, I think, was a bachelor, but he may have had descendants even so.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Sullivan was the bachelor.

Sir B. Baxter: Yes.
However, let us assume there are descendants and that they have come upon hard days. If Gi1bert or Sullivan had left them a house, or any piece of property like that, it would be theirs. The rights in Gi1bert and Sullivan's creative works, however, do not continue to belong to them.
A painter may struggle for fifty years, and receive little for his paintings, which may be sold and resold at an ever increasing price when at last their merit is


recognised, but his heirs have no benefit from that. I say to my right hon. Friend that it would be a marvellous thing if he would tell America and other countries that we shall take a different view aItogether about the rights of a creative artist.
We should at least regard the claims of the artist's descendants with a sense of responsibility comparable to that with which we regard the claims of industrialists' dependants. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is with me in spirit. I may not be putting the case very logically, but at least I am putting it sincerely, and very often sincerity lacks logic.

Mr. Ede: Since the hon. Gentleman does me the honour to allude to me, perhaps he will permit me to say that, while I am listening to what he is saying and endeavouring to make up my mind upon it, I should not like him to think that I have as yet been convinced.

Sir B. Baxter: I very often find myself in that condition.
I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few moments longer. I have tried to make the case of the young author whose book after fifty years becomes a success. He may have had many hard years. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the Bill, because it is an improvement upon the existing law. What a splendid thing it would be if in these difficult times this House were to do some justice and give some benefit to those whose votes, being few, count for little, for those whose financial and material influence upon the country is nothing, but without whom our lives would be bleak, lacking in leadership and lacking in inspiration. I make this plea for them with sincerity if not with entire and coherent logic.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter). On occasions like this, when we are not divided on party lines, there is, more often than at other times, complete understanding between hon. Members, and, personally, I feel nothing but admiration at the sincerity with which the hon. Member has spoken.
However, I want to introduce into the debate an issue rather apart from that which the hon. Member has presented to the House. I hope he will not mind, therefore, if I do not follow him further. The President of the Board of Trade said that the Bill is a very large and complex Measure. It is indeed, and I do not pretend to a complete understanding of it. Far too many of the Measures which come before the House are complex, and much of the time of hon. Members is taken up in trying to understand them. Much in this Bill pleases me, and I believe that it represents an effort to bring about a fair compromise, but there is one issue upon which there has not been the compromise which, I had hoped, we should have obtained.
I speak of staff—of workers'—retiring rooms where there are radio sets for the enjoyment of the staff using the retiring rooms. I see the Postmaster-General here, and I would tell him that I have particularly in mind Post Office staff retiring rooms. I was astonished to learn a few weeks ago that it is necessary to obtain from the Performing Right Society a licence in order that the staff may hear sound recording broadcasts in the retiring room.
I have had some correspondence with the Postmaster-General and the Board of Trade about the matter, and they have been good enough to reply to me. I make no complaint of the letter which the Postmaster-General sent to me, nor of the letter which came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, except that in that letter, in reply to my request that something be done about this matter, it was said:
No expression of opinion that I or the President might give you on this point would be authoritative. It is a legal issue, and the only way of ascertaining whether or not a given performance in a Post Office retiring room was in public is by decision in the High Court.
That is a very expensive procedure.
I should have thought that in a Copyright Bill some consideration might have been given to how far it was possible so to construct a Clause as to provide that conditions in staff retiring rooms would be regarded as being very similar


to the conditions set out in Clause 12 (7), which states:

"Where a sound recording is caused to be heard in public—

(a) at any premises where persons reside or sleep, as part of the amenities provided exclusively or mainly for residents or inmates therein, or
(b) as part of the activities of, or for the benefit of, a club society or other organisation which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare,

the act of causing it to be so heard shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the recording …
I should have thought that a definition of workers' retiring rooms would come very close to the terms of Clause 12 (7).
I have been trying to define such rooms. They are rooms set aside for meals, not rooms where meals are purchased. Frequently, the occupants go there to eat their sandwiches or brew themselves a cup of tea. Therefore, there can be no question of making a profit in them. The rooms are provided for rest and recuperation. They are not public in any sense of the word, and there is no charge for admission to them. In the main, good employers provide them. It is regarded as very necessary that there should be this opportunity to get away from the desk. Far too many clerical workers take their meals at the desk, and this provision of staff retiring rooms is an excellent idea. It is done within the Civil Service and provides a most useful amenity. Ought it not to be possible to alter the Clause in such a way that these staff retiring rooms can be included within the definition?
Post Office workers have made their contribution to joint productivity. There is no hope of giving them incentive bonuses or payment, but that has not prevented them from making their contribution, as I am sure the Postmaster-General will agree. By staff discussions we have been able to work out a lump sum payment as an incentive, and with some skill we have found ways and means of distributing that money, under Treasury authority. Part of the money has been distributed on a national basis. Some has gone to local post offices, where local Whitley committees, in considering

how best to use the money, have decided to provide radio sets in retiring rooms.
Yet, having secured this money from their efforts in joint productivity, they are told that the rooms must be licensed because a radio broadcast there becomes a public performance. Surely no one could argue that the workers' staff room is a public place—and no profit is made there. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be prepared to consider this point sympathetically, and be ready to have inserted in the Bill appropriate words to provide that staff retiring rooms shall come within the definition of Clause 12 (7).
If I am given the opportunity I shall move an Amendment to that effect in Committee. I regard it as a matter of some importance to many workers. If it does not traverse the many other weighty matters which have been mentioned in the debate, or touch some of the eminent personalities to whom reference has been made today, it would at least do something useful for the workers of the country.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: I do not want to try to follow the noble example of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) in making a Second Reading speech. I propose to follow all the other examples, for this is one of those Bills which consist almost entirely of Committee points. I hope that I shall be very short in asking one or two questions and that, if I am short enough, my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade may forgive me if I am not here, as I should like to be, though I am afraid I shall not, when he comes to reply.
I do not quite understand the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall). A similar point had been in my mind, but I had not quite understood how one spotted one's philanthropic disc jockey. I come, I am afraid, always with some suspicion to the State's distinction between the wicked men who are out for profit and the good men who are philanthropists.
I do not regard the State as infallible in making those distinctions, and I had a little wondered how the State was going to tell that a given disc jockey was


always not philanthropic. I suppose that it turns on the words,
…advancement of religion, education or social welfare….
I should be the last to try to weaken the advantages which are enjoyed by some institutions in these connections, but I should like to ask whether these words are all of them judicially defined and it is known exactly what they mean and whether any of them would begin to require definition only now We cannot distinguish between serious and light music and we may perhaps be a little modest about distinguishing between philanthropy and profit.
There is a point on Clause 4 which is part of a major point that has been made several times. It has been suggested to me—I do not adopt it, I put it purely interrogatively—that possibly a university professor or official might be caught by the definition here of employment and that it might be held in the courts that anything he wrote, at least on the subject on which he lectures, might come under the mischief of Clause 4 (4). I am told that there has in fact been no such case, but I think it would be reassuring if we could have a few words upon that.
I understand the difficulties about photostats from librarians, having discussed them with various librarians. Those librarians whom it concerns, and whom I personally know best, would have preferred to be left with the old fair dealing and not to have had the elaboration under this Statute. I know that my librarian friends are probably in a minority in their world, but I should like to be reassured that this has been fully considered, and will be more fully considered before we part with the Bill. Particularly, the question has been put to me whether the new words in Clause 7 exclude fair dealing or whether the application of the fair dealing concept would remain as well as the new statutory elaboration. I am not sure if I am making it clear, but I hope that the point is sufficiently indicated.
One other thing and then I will sit down. I am afraid these are, in a sense, all Committee points, but they go to the nature of the Bill and I hope I am not too far away from Second Reading. My last point concerns the nature of the Tribunal. The chairman is to be the

seven-year lawyer, and so on. I understand that it might be inappropriate to try to define exactly who the other three members ought to be, what professions they ought to come from, or what qualifications they should have. On the other hand, from the point of view of trying to get at something in one's imagination of the kind of tribunal it will be, it would be convenient if the House might have some indication of the composition which is in the minds of the Ministers, and possibly that may be given to us today.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I must begin, like other hon. Members, by disclosing an interest. I suppose most of us have an interest of some kind or other in the Bill. I am afraid that my own modest contributions to authorship have not been sufficiently profitable to enable me to count them as an interest. But a substantial part of my professional career has been spent in advising individuals engaged in the film industry, film companies, and recently a television company, on the not very simple matters of the law of copyright.
Having said that, I want to join in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and by other hon. Friends of mine who have spoken from these benches in saying that our approach to this subject is one of sympathy for those who are responsible for the creation of some artistic or intellectual work, whether literary, dramatic, musical or in some other form. We believe that their rights and interests should be fully protected and, in certain respects, should be strengthened beyond the provisions of the Bill.
I believe that the Bill was considerably improved in various matters of detail during its passage through another place, and I hope that in our Committee stage we shall have further opportunities of introducing Amendments, as, for example, that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall). After all, the entire subject is, in a sense, artificial. Copyright is the creation of statute, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said that it is the object of all of us, in approaching the Bill, to attempt to strike a fair balance between the conflicting rights of all the parties interested in this field, including the general public.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the observation of the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter). There is no special magic in the period of 50 years after the death of an author as the period of copyright. There is no reason why that should be 50 rather than 60 or 75 years, or any longer period. Incidentally, I am not sure whether, if one wanted to give effect to his suggestion, one would be in any way departing from the provisions of the Berne Convention. If one were not transgressing that, I should be in sympathy with his suggestion. However, I regard it as a paramount consideration, as I think did the President of the Board of Trade, that in this matter we should bring ourselves into line in the international sphere with all the countries who are parties to that Convention, now brought up to date at Brussels, and that we should not deprive ourselves of the full benefit of the new advantages that will be derived from the new Universal Copyright Convention.
It is inevitable that in speeches in this Second Reading debate we should raise a certain number of Committee points, and they are no less relevant and valuable because they will give the Ministers concerned advanced notice of them and an opportunity of dealing with them when we come to the Committee stage. One Committee point of special importance is the one referred to by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans), namely, that of the relay companies. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that this will lead to intolerable confusion and hardship, unless it is clarified. This is merely an illustration of the highly complex nature of the subject with which we are dealing. Whilst we are all agreed that protection should be given to creative authors and others, when we enter the realm of mechanical rights and devices we are in a much more difficult sphere, as to the considerations which should apply.
In order to explain the matter it is necessary to go a little further than the hon. Member for Hornsey went. He pointed out correctly that the Copyright Committee, in dealing with the question of the relay companies, contented itself with the observation at paragraph 120 that it was not prepared to suggest any alteration in the present relationship between the Postmaster-General, the B.B.C. and the relay companies.
Of course, at the time of the publication of that Report in October, 1952, the B.B.C. alone was responsible for both broadcasting and television. We had not entered into the highly controversial discussions as to whether commercial television should or should not be introduced into this country. Since then a great deal has happened and, for better or worse. we now have not only the B.B.C. providing television programmes, but also the I.T.A., under arrangements with programme contractors, as laid down in the Television Act.
As a result we get this curious situation. In the old days, when the B.B.C. alone provided broadcasting and television programmes, the Corporation collected fees from the public. Owing to the fact that in various areas of this country reception is not perfect, a number of relay companies set themselves up. Their mission in life was to pick up at convenient strategic points the signals sent out by the B.B.C. and then, by a mechanical device, to pipe them, as it is called, under a licence from the Postmaster-General to its subscribers in order that various members of the public in areas of imperfect reception might enjoy good transmission. They charged a fee to the subscriber and they conferred a benefit on the B.B.C. and on the public generally. In those days no question arose of copyright or infringement of copyright. Therefore, it was logical for the Committee in 1952 to say that it was not prepared to disturb that position.
However, since then the Independent Television Authority has been set up, and in its wisdom—it might have been required to do so by the Act—it has divided the country into various regions and appointed programme contractors to provide television programmes in definite regions. The programme contractors do not derive any revenue from fees; they derive their revenue from advertisements, advertisers being encouraged to advertise on their respective stations in the belief that there would be a certain number of self-contained areas within which each programme contractor would be able, in competition only with the B.B.C. and not with any other programme contractor, to supply a programme.
In that situation one has to consider what the operations and functions of the relay companies are. It became obvious


to the Independent Television Authority and to others that if relay companies could continue to operate not only for areas of imperfect reception, but also for fringe areas between one region and another, it would, unless there was control, be possible for, for example, one programme contractor, such as a London contractor, by setting up relay station apparatus on the periphery of his area, to pipe his programmes not only into adjacent regions, but, in time, into Scotland, Wales and elsewhere.
If the relay companies were entitled to do that, without infringing anyone's copyright, we should have a situation which would destroy the whole basis on which the Independent Television Authority was set up and the whole basis upon which the various television companies have sought advertising revenue from various defined areas. Therefore, an intolerable situation was produced, and, indeed, would be perpetuated under the Bill as it stands, because Clause I4 omits any requirement that a relay company should obtain a licence, and furthermore, in Clause 46, as at present drafted, it is specifically provided that the operation of a broadcast relay station should not be taken to constitute a performance.
As the hon. Member for Hornsey pointed out, we have in the Bill as it stands the anomalous situation that a television copyright is being given to both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and at the same time the whole of the apparatus set up by the I.T.A. will be defeated if relay companies are entitled to copy, with impunity, the programme provided by a television contractor and transmit it by some mechanical device all over the country.
It is only fair to say that the Postmaster-General and the Government as a whole have obviously considered the problem. As I understand it, the suggestion which has hitherto been made by the Postmaster-General is that this extraordinary position should be solved not, as one would have thought, by amending the Bill, but by introducing a condition in the licence under which the relay companies work. That will be essential in any event. Under the Wireless Telegraph Acts the Postmaster-General has power to lay down the conditions under which relay stations operate, but that position may change. In fact, the whole condition of television

is likely to change in the next few years. As the hon. Member for Hornsey foreshadowed, it will not be very long before television companies operating from overseas will, unless regulated, be able to transmit programmes into this country that will compete with both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.
That may or may not be desirable, but what is clearly undesirable is that people should be able to do that without any control or regulation and without the obligation to pay any fees to the authors of programmes, to the creators of original work which is being broadcast or televised, and to the composers of music and so forth included in such programmes. It is most undesirable that the whole of that matter should be left in a state of unregulated and complete confusion.
Consequently, I want to stress before we reach Committee that the Bill in that respect is most unsatisfactory and will lead to very serious consequences to all concerned. It does not seem to me to be by any means satisfactory to rely merely on the powers of the Postmaster-General to deal with the matter by introducing conditions into his licences. I am doubtful how far that safeguard may continue to be satisfactory. I do not know whether the conditions of the licence are such that fresh conditions can be introduced in respect of licences which have already been issued. I do not know what sanctions can be attached if a relay station which has been granted a licence then infringes conditions attached to the licence.
Whatever the position may be, if the matter is regulated in that way it means that those concerned—I refer now to the I.T.A., programme contractors, authors, composers, the providers of sporting events and owners of copyright—will have no direct relief or redress. They will merely have the opportunity of complaining to the Postmaster-General that some relay station has violated one of his conditions.
I do not want to minimise the value of that protection, but I think it will be agreed that to state the proposition in those terms is to show that, although this may serve as a necessary expedient, until we know how the Bill will emerge into law, it would be a most unsatisfactory way for us, as legislators, to leave the matter. Consequently, I urge that the


most serious consideration should be given to this aspect before the Committee stage.
A number of other Committee points will arise. In general, all I want to say is that I should wish to support some of the Amendments which have been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and other hon. Members, which will be designed to strengthen the protection which will be given to authors, composers and originators of artistic work generally under the provisions of the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: Like the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I have an interest to disclose, but it is not the same as his interest. He will therefore forgive me if I do not follow him in detail about matters relating to the exploitation of films and performing rights, about which he is an expert. My interest is that of an author. My first book was published 23 years ago, and since that time I have had dealings with many publishers and I have never had anything about which to complain. In this country a high standard of conduct obtains in relations between publishers and authors. Nevertheless, I was pleased that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) emphasised the need for protecting the creator of a literary or other work as against the exploiter. I very much sympathise with that point of view.
When we recall the importance of the two Conventions which I hope will shortly be ratified by Her Majesty's Government, this seems to be a Measure which is considerably overdue, especially when we remember that the Brussels Convention, which is the latest version of the Berne Convention, was concluded in 1948 and the other Convention, sponsored by U.N.E.S.C.O. —the Universal Copyright Convention— was concluded in 1952, and that the Report of the Copyright Committee was issued in that year.
That Committee, to which welldeserved tribute for its work has been paid, recommended that the Copyright Act, 1911, should, as we have heard, be amended, primarily so that Her Majesty's Government could accede to those two important international Con-

ventions. That is an action which, entirely apart from its intellectual and cultural aspect as between nations, is bound to promote our export trade in books and increse our trade balance, particularly with dollar countries.
In the course of this interesting debate we have heard that copyright is a complex branch of the law. It is also one which has developed slowly. It did not, of course, assume any real importance until after the invention of printing. Nevertheless, I like to think that the first recorded action for an infringement of copyright took place in the sixth century in Ireland, where there was a high degree of civilisation and scholarship which has subsequently waxed and waned to a considerable extent.

Mr. Ede: Mainly waned.

Mr. Hyde: The action was between two monks who were subsequently canonised, St. Finian of Moville and St. Columba. St. Columba misappropriated a manuscript belonging to St. Finian, and copied it. St. Finian found out about it and appealed to the then King of Ireland, who gave judgment in favour of St. Finian at Tara in these very striking words:
To every cow its calf and every book its copy.
That was a wise and far-seeing judgment which is really the basis of the international law on the subject today. That first recorded action had the result that the unauthorised copy which was made by St. Columba was subsequently imported into Scotland, and I understand that that resulted in the conversion of the Scots to the Christian faith.
As the hon. Member for Islington, East very rightly said in the course of his learned speech, copyright is the creation of statute. In this country authors enjoyed virtually no protection for their works until the beginning of the eighteenth century. The first Copyright Act which gave protection was passed in the reign of Queen Anne, in 1709, and that gave maximum protection for only 28 years from publication.
That remained the law until 1814, when it was very slightly extended to the residue of the author's life on the expiry of that 28 years. From 1842 until 1911 the law was amended still further in favour of the author, the period of protection then being the life of the author plus


seven years, or 42 years from publication, whichever was the longer. Although that afforded authors increased protection, and most Victorian writers' books were dealt with under that Act, it had the highly inconvenient result that an author's individual copyrights fell into the public domain at different dates.
In 1911 came the Copyright Act about which we have heard. It was a great Act which codified the law. It says much for those who were responsible for its drafting that it has lasted for nearly half a century. It embodied the conception to which most, but not all civilised nations—all the Berne Convention countries—subscribe, that an author should obtain protection limited to his life plus 50 years, except in the case of works which are posthumously published and, of course, those which are unpublished at the time of his death, in which cases the period runs from publication. That Act also created the conception of performing rights, although at that time the gramophone and films were in their infancy and nothing had been heard of radio or television.
Arguments have been advanced—and they were put before the Board of Trade Copyright Committee—for a longer term of copyright protection and for a shorter term. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) has argued most persuasively, as is his custom, and I think convincingly, in favour of a very long term of copyright, perhaps copyright in perpetuity.
I should like to agree with him, if only in my own interests, but it is with some reluctance that I disagree. He is in good company, because one of the witnesses before the Board of Trade Copyright Committee in favour of copyright in perpetuity was Dr. Marie Stopes. I do not know whether she felt that she should have a perpetual copyright in the subject of her own writings, but she made a similar plea. However, I must agree with the Copyright Committee that the idea of perpetual copyright, or very long protection, is not in accord with the tendency of the times.

Sir B. Baxter: Let us take the case of a young writer of 20 years of age who is married to a girl of his own age. He may be a genius, perhaps a writer before his time. He writes a book which is

published and which sells a few copies. He struggles on and finally dies very young. His poor wife lives on. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) laughs. I see nothing facetious in this. The output of Cambridge finds great humour in a wife struggling on. He has his own sense of humour, and we cannot blame Cambridge for everything it produces.

Mr. Pickthom: Nor Fleet Street.

Sir B. Baxter: That is fair.
The wife has a terrible time, and 50 years after the death of her husband she is still living. Suddenly the book becomes a great success. It is rediscovered, and publishers make fortunes from it, but she draws nothing whatsoever, as indeed she could draw nothing whatsoever at that stage.

Mr. Hyde: I follow my hon. Friend's point, and it is well known that hard cases make bad law but I think that he has advanced an exceptional case. The best answer I can give him is to read paragraph 17 of the Report of the Copyright Committee, which answers my hon. Friend's point completely. It says:
The argument that a continuing right should subsist in property which is the product of the author's own brain is one which cannot fail to make an appeal, even if only for reasons of sentiment. It can be argued with force that property in the product of a man's brain deserves as much protection as property in the product of his hands and that, unprotected, it is more open to subsequent mutilation, with possible reactions on his reputation. Nevertheless, the principle of perpetual copyright in published works is one which has been foreign to our law for at least two hundred years, and it is quite contrary to the tendency of the times for the State to grant an unlimited right of the kind sought. The public at large has an overwhelming interest in the reproduction of literary, dramatic and musical works, and we are satisfied that it would be quite impossible to justify a right in perpetuity. It may be added that we are satisfied that the difficulties of establishing who is the true owner of a copyright work after a period of years are so substantial as to render the proposal impracticable, even if it were desirable in principle.
In the case of the period of life plus 50 years, the term of 50 years is arbitrary, but that was the figure which was embodied in the 1911 Act, and it is that which it is proposed to re-enact in the present Bill. In addition—and this is of the greatest importance—it is the term to which the signatories to the latest version of the Berne Convention have sub-


scribed. That Convention is of tremendous importance to authors, composers and publishers, because each member country extends the protection of its own copyright law to the works of foreign nationals of other member countries.
I should like to say one other word about this Berne Convention—or perhaps I should call it the Brussels Convention. This arises out of what the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and other hon. Members have said about the limitation of the copyright protection period accorded by our law whereby, for the last 25 years of the term, the copyright owner can be compelled to license the publication of the work in copyright upon payment by the publisher of a fee of 10 per cent. by way of royalty, calculated upon the retail price of the book.
I believe that that provision was inserted into the 1911 Act to give publishers an opportunity of being able to reprint cheaply the works of established authors. There are exceptions, of course —indeed, the hon. Member for Stechford mentioned one, namely, Kipling—but experience has shown that where the works of an author have been successful, that author is usually only too anxious for his works to be reprinted in a cheap edition long before he dies and certainly long before 25 years have elapsed after his death.
The reason why that part of the 1911 Act should not be re-enacted in the present Bill is that, although all the countries subscribing to the Berne Convention have agreed to a period of life plus 50 years, they cannot agree to make a change in their domestic legislation to permit of this 10 per cent. payment being incorporated. For that reason, therefore, I suppose it must be given up.
There are certain other points in which changes are made, for instance, in regard to joint authorship and anonymous publications, which have not been mentioned so far. Under our present law, where a work is the product of joint authors— and by that I do not mean such works as those of Gilbert and Sullivan, where the products of each collaborator are distinguishable, but where the work is really a joint work—the term of protection begins to run from the death of the first author. Under the Bill, and also under the terms of the Brussels Convention, the term runs from the death of

the last surviving author. Another point, not covered by the 1911 Act, concerns anonymous works, in regard to which it is laid down that, unless they are published under a pseudonym which is well known, copyright shall run from the date of publication.
I also want to say a few words about the Universal Copyright Convention, to which Her Majesty's Government will now be able to adhere when the Bill becomes law. That Convention is of the very greatest importance to us and our authors, composers and artists. That Convention was sponsored by U.N.E.S.C.O., and in 1952 was signed by over more than ninety States, including the Soviet Union and the United States of America—virtually every country in the world. It is very important that we should be able to ratify it because, although it affords rather less protection—life plus 25 years as against life plus 50 years in the case of the Berne Convention—the fact that the United States of America is a signatory and has ratified it means that the arrangements by which the works of British authors may be published in the United States in future will be greatly simplified.
The situation in the United States of America has never been very satisfactory for British authors. Until 1891, the works of our authors were quite unprotected in that country, as were those of all other foreign authors. Pirating of works took place upon an enormous scale. Occasionally, however, we were able to pirate American works. One case which comes to mind was that of Harriet Beecher Stowe's, "Uncle Tom's Cabin", which was published in 1852, long before the United States entered into a copyright understanding with us. Copies of that work were reproduced in very large numbers without any obligation on the part of publishers to pay royalties.
Generally speaking, however, the arrangement worked to the advantage of the United States because, after the first Berne Convention was concluded in 1886, the United States, although not adhering to that Convention, was able to obtain benefit by reason of the fact that it was laid down that any country which did not belong to the Union and had an author —

Mr, A. J. Irvine: On a point of order. Does this question arise out of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: This is a Second Reading debate, and in such a debate the discussion is generally wide, covering matters which are either in the Bill or ought to be in the Bill, in the opinion of the hon. Member addressing the House.

Mr. Hyde: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I do think that this point is of importance because I was trying to show how unsatisfactory the position was in regard to the works of British authors published in the U.S.A. up to the present. I was saying that the United States was able to take advantage of the Berne Convention by simultaneously publishing the works of its own authors in the country of a neighbour State—such as Canada— which belonged to the Convention—and obtaining the protection of the Convention, although in fact it did not itself belong to the Convention.
Also, the United States has required quite stringent formalities up to now. One is that works by foreign authors must be registered in the Library of Congress, and another is that, as stipulated in the American Act, they must be printed and "manufactured" in that country. British authors have, as a result, sometimes been put to a very great deal of trouble to secure protection for their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate referred to Oscar Wilde, and the position in regard to the Wilde copyrights. In 1911, in order to secure protection for the complete version of "De Profundis"—the work which Oscar Wilde wrote in prison—and to prevent unauthorised publication in the U.S.A., the executor of the Wilde estate had fifteen copies especially printed by an American printer and publisher, fourteen of which were distributed to his friends and, in order to satisfy the American copright law, the fifteenth was exhibited for sale. So as to prevent anyone buying it, the price of 2,500 dollars was put on the book, as it was thought that that would be prohibitive, but someone walked into the shop, put down 2,500 dollars and acquired it. There was a similar happening in the case of "The Mint" by T. E. Lawrence, where the price at which the books was offered was 500,000 dollars, but no one could produce that sum of money.
No wonder that President Eisenhower has said that he could not understand how authors and composers could get on without this Convention. As a result of our adherence to it and the adherence of the U.S.A. to it, these tiresome and difficult formalities of registration and manufacturing have now been dispensed with. All that is now necessary is for a simple symbol, the letter "c" with a circle round it, the date of publication and the name of the foreign author to appear on the title page, and automatically that obtains protection in the United States
.
In this country we have been without the benefits of that protection for far too long. I welcome this Bill particularly because it will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Universal Copyright Convention, and so result in very great advantage to British authors, artists, composers and publishers, as well as giving a much needed boost to our export trade in the commodities which those people provide for general instruction and entertainment.
There are only a few points in regard to the individual Clauses of the Bill on which I have anything further to say. In regard to Clause 4, of which we have heard a great deal, I must say that I agree that the position of a writer or journalist who is commissioned by a newspaper to contribute an article, or series of articles, is not really very satisfactory as the Clause is drafted, and I hope that it may be amended. An author or journalist, particularly an unknown or inexperienced journalist, who contributes a commissioned article in that way, frequently does not appreciate that the article can be syndicated all over the world in many newspapers without his knowledge, although under the arrangement with the newspaper he is liable to have it dealt with in that way.
Another small point concerns Clauses 7 and 40, which relate to libraries and archives and enable librarians to provide, by mechanical means—by photography, photostating or microfilms— students with copies of documents for the purpose of study, research, or even with a view to publication. The Board of Trade Copyright Report recommended that where a document or manuscript was more than a hundred years old and


the author or writer of it had been dead for more than fifty years, a person should be able to put an advertisement in the public Press saying that he wished to make use of that ancient manuscript for the purposes of his literary work, and if there was no objection on the part of the public, he should be entitled to do so. That recommendation does not find any place in either of those Clauses, and I wonder whether it is not a matter for consideration that something of that kind should be added.
Another small point relates to the copyright of the Crown, which is dealt with in Clause 38, which says in subsection (1):
Where an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department,—

(a) if apart from this section copyright would not subsist in the work, copyright shall subsist therein by virtue of this sub-section, and
(b) in any case. the copyright in the work shall vest in the Crown."


I would he very grateful if, when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, he would throw a little light on that Clause. Does the expression
by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department
apply, for instance, to a petition addressed by a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's jails to the Home Secretary, or a letter written by a prisoner? Would that be held to be,
under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department"?
The final point which I want to make concerns Ireland. I am very glad that the Act is to apply to Northern Ireland, as did the Act of 1911. In this connection it is laid down that the Section in 1911 Act—I think Section 15—which makes it obligatory for publishers to supply certain libraries, such as the British Museum, with copies of works which they publish is re-enacted. Amongst those librarles is that of Trinity College, Dublin. During the hearing of evidence by the Copyright Committee objection was taken to the proposed continuance of this obligation on the part of publishers to supply works to an authority or institution which is now part of a Republic which is outside the British Commonwealth.
In view of the very close ties of Trinity College, Dublin, with this country, its

great contribution to education and learning, and having regard to the fact that Trinity College, Dublin, has enjoyed this privilege for over a century-and-a-half, I believe it would be a great pity if it were to lose it now, and I am very pleased that it is not intended to deny to the College the continuance of this privilege and that the College will continue to receive these works if Section 15 of the 1911 Act is re-enacted, as is proposed in the Schedule.
Finally, apart from a few improvements which no doubt will be made in Committee, I regard this as a most desirable Measure. Speaking for myself, my only regret is that it was not introduced much sooner.

6.31 p.m

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I agree with a good deal that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) said in the course of his lively contribution to the debate. At one time, however, it seemed to me that he was treating this as the Measure by which the House was being asked to ratify the Universal Copyright Convention and the Brussels Convention of the Berne Union. I agree with him that undoubtedly very great advantages will accrue to this country from these Conventions; there is no doubt that it is very important that British authors should be protected in the United States, in particular, by the simple formalities proposed in a whole host of instances without there being any requirement that the work published over there will be manufactured with type set up in the United States.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said about both the Universal Copyright Convention and the Brussels Convention of the Berne Union, but I would regard it as unfortunate if this House, on Second Reading or in Committee, were to permit its welcome to these Conventions and its opinions about them to obscure the other issues which arise from the Bill. One point which I should like to have made clear is the extent to which the Government regard their treatment of the Bill in Committee as already largely determined by reason of the necessity, upon which we all agree, of this country adhering to the Brussels Convention and the Universal Copyright. Convention.
I hope that the Government, through the President, will pay special attention


to the very interesting fact that in the course of the debate, and from both sides of the House, there have come strong pleas to him about both Clause 4 and Clause 8. A striking feature of the debate has been the extent to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed upon the very important issues which arise under these Clauses, and I want to ask him—because at the moment I do not know—whether there is anything in the Brussels Convention or the Universal Copyright Convention which in any way inhibits or affects the Government's decisions upon the matters that arise out of Clauses 4 and 8. I conceive the position to be that the decision of the House upon the matters arising under these two Clauses is not affected by anything in the Conventions, but it would be valuable to have that confirmed.
This is, of course, an extraordinarily important Bill, which is designed to bring the law of copyright up to date. As we all know, the last Copyright Act was as long ago as 1911, and the length of time that has passed since that Act is brought home to us by the emphasis which it places upon the perforated roll. That was at the time regarded as the most remarkable of the recently discovered contrivances for musical performances.
The period of time which has expired is considerable and the problems which have arisen as a result of technical discovery and invention since the 1911 Act are very great indeed. What I regard as a serious feature of the Bill is that as the inventions have increased in scope and importance and as the mechanical contrivances have become more significant and more powerful, so insistently, the relative status and importance of the creator of the original work in copyright law has been pushed back. I believe that to be a very serious thing. It is not unexpected that authors and artists should fail to combine together to protect their interests. They are the last people one supposes who would be able or perhaps willing to do so, just as they are the first people foolhardily to sign away their copyrights to a commissioning editor.
Be that as it may, it is to my mind a most important feature of the Bill that the author, as distinct from the producer of the mechanical contrivances and the records, as distinct also from the great corporations and companies which control

broadcasting, as distinct from these great forces whose powers are carefully safeguarded in the Bill, is pushed into the background. I believe that we must watch the interest of authors and artists in this respect very carefully indeed. I believe that the author and the artist is, ex hypothesi, if he is distinguished in that rôle, unlikely to be very alert to his business interests, and I say that with great respect to the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter), since there are exceptions to every rule.
The House has an opportunity in this instance of intervening on an important matter to protect the position of authors and artists. I believe that the principle which we should regard as central in this matter is that we want to preserve for the author or the artist, the creator of the work, the maximum protection of his property in his creation which is consistent with a wide circulation and diffusion of his work. As far as can be, the two things should be balanced together—the kind of balance which in some ways is reminiscent of what the President of the Board of Trade has been doing recently in dealing with restrictive trade practices.
I think the principle to which we should adhere in this matter is that of trying, as far as we can, to combine the maximum protection for the creator of an artistic or written work of the property in his work with the greatest possible circulation and diffusion of his work in the public interest. As far as the public interest is concerned, that can be very largely effected in my view by the fair dealings provisions. What is lacking in the Bill are provisions to protect the author's interests in particular. Clause 4 is a most striking example of that. It is new law, as I understand it, that an author commissioned to write an article does not have the copyright in the work that he writes. That is new law and it is quite clearly derogatory to the author's position in the law of copyright.
It is perfectly true, as has been said, that an author may over the telephone, or quite casually sign, away copyright by the statutory effects of this provision, and sign away something, in all likelihood, which may prove incomparably more valuable than he realises. One of the features of copyright is that at the time the written work is executed no one knows how valuable commercially the


property in it will prove to be. The author does not and the employing editor or publisher who is to publish the work does not know. It takes time to find out these things. That is a feature of the matter which, in my view, should always be in the minds of those considering the law of copyright.
1ndeed, I believe that the nature of this type of ownership is so distinctive in character that a very strong argument could be brought forward for having a special provision of the law, similar to the Hire Purchase Act in its endeavour to protect a particular class of contracting party, to protect the rights of authors in respect of their copyright and to enable them in certain circumstances, if events justify it, to adjust the contract or avoid its effect sooner than would ordinarily be practicable. One could do this, first, because the parties to the matter are so unlikely to be alert to their business interests, and, secondly, because of this peculiar feature to which I have ventured to draw attention, namely, the fact that when the property right accrues there is no one in the world in a position to know what its value will be commercially measured in the course of time.
This provision which is proposed, whereby an author can abandon his copyright for commissioned works under Clause 4, has to be considered, in my view, in the context that the Bill is taking away the restricted copyright which was provided for under Section 3 of the 1911 Act. That change, I understand, is a direct consequence of the need, which we all recognise, to adhere to the Brussels Convention. I am not arguing at the moment against that, but it is important to recognise that the taking away of that provision may often prove derogatory to the author.
The position under the existing law, as I understand it, is that where an author writes a work which proves in the event to be a good deal more valuable than it was thought to be by the author himself or the publisher, at the time when the copyright was assigned away, then at the end of 25 years there commences a period of restricted copyright. It then becomes open to any other publisher who gives the necessary notice and who pays the 10 per cent, royalty to publish the work, and the author's work published by that publisher will not be an infringing copy and will not

infringe the right of the assignee of the copyright. That is a most important advantage for an author in the particular case which I have described, where the value of the work proved to be much greater than was contemplated when the copyright first accrued.
It may be of great importance to an author, if he is to get the maximum out of his product, to have cheap editions of his work, and yet the publishing firm which is the assignee of the copyright may be reluctant to publish cheap editions. If the author is disadvantaged by that fact, then by the proviso of the 1911 Act it was open to other publishers to pay 10 per cent. to the author on the cheap editions of the work after his 25 years. I am not objecting to the change. I am only endeavouring to bring to the attention of the House that, at whichever point we look at this Bill, we find that it is the author, the original creator of the work, who is being shouldered and e1bowed out. I ask that Clause 4 should be considered in the light of that.
It is true, of course, that the Copyright Committee applied their minds to this point, and that it has stated that, in its experience and on the evidence which it received, the practical advantages to authors of the proviso under Section 3 of the 1911 Act had not proved of very great importance. The reason they give is that where it is desirable to have, at the end of 25 years or so, a cheap edition of a popular work and the assignee of the copyright is reluctant to publish a cheap edition, in practice the assignee is usually agreeable to allowing other publishers, by licence, to do so. The Committee has found, in practice, that this is not a matter which gives rise to very great difficulty. It seems to me to be a matter of some importance, however, and I ask the House and the Government to consider these encroachments on authors' rights in the light of considerations of that kind.
Clause 8 of the Bill is another glaring example of advantage being taken in practice—I do not say with deliberate unfairness—of the vulnerability of the creators of artistic works. As has been said—and I think that it bears mentioning again—the effect of Clause 8 is that a composer who has authorised another party to make a sound recording of his work thereby gives away all safeguards. which he possesses against the cheapening


and derogation of his work by a whole host of other competing reproducers. This is a very serious matter indeed. It is not, of course, at all met by the fact that a royalty has to be paid. It is quite wrong to assume that what is valuable in copyright is limited to the right to recover payment for the reproduction of a work.
There is another feature, namely, the extent to which the standard of reproduction of the work is safeguarded, and that is a feature, not of a commercial or pecuniary kind, to which many composers attach the greatest importance. Under the Bill, it is clear that if a composer has composed a work and gives to any producer of records the right to reproduce the work on a record, by that action he gives the right to everybody else to make a record for sale and his copyright in his work is not infringed by other producers who produce the work on discs, playing it perhaps by orchestras or bands of inferior quality and making a mockery of the whole thing.
It is true that the producer of the second and subsequent records of works for sale has to give notice to the composer, but he is to do so, I understand, by mentioning the matter in the London Gazette. The prospect of a distinguished composer reading the London Gazette at breakfast and learning in this fashion that his composition is to be reproduced by still another exploiter is farcical and unrealistic. In Clause 8, therefore, there is another example of the erosion, as it has been described in this connection in another place, of the rights of the originators of artistic works.
I would venture to mention only one other example. If I have the point wrong in any way, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies will put me right. The point which I desire to mention seems to me to be related to the points to which I have referred. The new copyright in television performances, it seems to me, is a new kind of right altogether. It is much more in its nature a performing right than a copyright.
A television performance, so it appears, gives rise to a property right although no tangible record of the performance is made. It does not go on to a disc; it may be in many instances improvised, so

that there is no preparatory script and the performance possesses no permanent form, but although it possesses no permanent form it gives rise to a property right in the nature of copyright. That is what I understand to be the effect of this novel departure.
It is to be observed that here again the original creators of the work are elbowed out because the people who perform have no rights conferred upon them. The property is all in the possession of the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority. That seems to me to be quite wrong. It can be said that these performers or participants are agreeable enough to having all property rights arising out of the enterprise assigned to the employing authority, to the I.T.A. or the B.B.C., respectively. I wonder whether they realise how much they are giving away. It is an interesting feature to observe that where a new form of ownership of property in a television performance is created, it is handed by Statute to the Authoritles while the participants in the improvised performance which has been brought on to television, who are in any true sense the creators of the thing have no property rights in the matter at all.
Mainly, therefore, on the ground that authors and artists who create original works are not receiving the due protection to which they are entitled, I invite the House to watch with vigilance the provisions of the Bill.

6.55 p.m

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) opened and closed his remarks by indicating his approach to the Bill as being one of protection for the author, the artist and the creator, and in that he was repeating what has been said by other hon. Members from the Opposition benches. Let me at once assure the hon. Member that that approach to the Bill is not a monopoly of the benches opposite. As has been shown by speeches from this side, we too approach the Bill from the point of view of protecting the creator of a work in which a copyright can exist.
Like all other speakers today, I welcome and support the Bill, not only because it is an overdue implementation


of the Report of the Copyright Committee, not only because it enables us to ratify the Universal Copyright Convention, but because, after all these years from 1911, it is surely time that Parliament looked again at the copyright law under the modern conditions of publication and of reproduction, which have changed so much since 1911, and should look again to see whether, on the one hand, the author and creator is getting a fair and encouraging protection under modern conditions and whether, on the other hand, the public are getting a fair share of the creative talents of the nation.
I am not sure whether the Bill entirely takes modern conditions into account. There are certain ambiguities, for example, concerning the recent innovation of the advertising film for television. I find a little difficulty in construing such modern innovations as that. But such criticisms as I wish to make will, I hope, be constructive and in no way detract from my general support for the Bill.
It has been said how Clause 4, which has been mentioned again and again, cuts into the basic principle of the existing copyright law that the author is the owner of the copyright. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I give an illustration of that basic principle from personal experience. It is an instance which drove home that principle to me when I was a young articled clerk in a solicitor's office and I had to write some letters complaining about the conduct of a certain gentleman. He pinned those letters to his front garden gate. The client was a little upset at having his affairs exhibited to his neighbours. My principal was a little upset because he thought it was unfair advertising and he told me to do something about it. I could not tear down the letters from the gatepost for that would have been theft, because the property in the paper on which letters are written is vested in the addressee. So I took proceedings to obtain an injunction against the gentleman who had stuck the letters on the gatepost, to restrain him from publishing my literary efforts without authority. I succeeded in those proceedings to protect those rather poor literary efforts in letters that I had written.
I do not think this Bill would prevent such an action in future, but it makes an inroad into the rights of the original

author. As the law stands at present, there are only two exceptions to the rule that the author is the owner of the copyright. One exception, in the case of engravings and photographs, is that if they are commissioned the person who commissions them is the owner of the copyright. The only other exception is in the case of master and servant where the master is the owner of the copyright in something produced by his servant. I use the phrase "master and servant" deliberately, although one would perhaps better call them employer and employee.
Before complaining of how Clause 4 introduces further exceptions and restrictions on the author, may I say that I would have wished to see a reduction in the existing exceptions, for example with photographs. I can see a good reason why, if one commissions a portrait of oneself, the copyright should remain in oneself. I am sure that is merely expressing in law the obvious intention of the sitter and the photographer when the transaction is brought about. But I cannot see why, if one commissions a photograph of a landscape, or something of that nature, that should give one the copyright in that photograph. If a person commissions a painter to paint a landscape, that person does not obtain the copyright in that printing. But if a photographer is commissioned to photograph that landscape, the person commissioning him obtains the copyright.
I would have like to see that exception of the general rule that the author is the owner restricted to portrait photographs and not extended, as it is at present. to landscape photographs as well. Clause 4 (3) does not carry out the principle which I favour. It says:
…where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait"—
there is some distinction between a photograph and the painting or drawing of a portrait—
or the making of an engraving, and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the person who so commissions the work shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein …
So much for photographs.
Let me turn to the other exception of the master and servant. The copyright in anything produced by a servant in the course of his employment belongs to the


master. I had the privilege recently of moving in this House a Motion concerning suggestion schemes in industry, and as a result of that there were brought to my attention many examples of cases where employees had failed to co-operate with suggestion schemes because they were afraid that they had no property in the idea put forward. They feared that if they committed their idea to paper in a form which would have been capable of copyright, they would not get the benefit of it.
This applies particularly in patent law relating to inventions by employees, but it applies also in copyright law particularly in relation to the administrative clerk who devises a new form, and perhaps new wording on a form, which may save an enormous amount of money, particularly in Government Departments, for instance. The employee refuses to put forward the idea because he gets no copyright. His master has the copyright.
I would have liked to see this aspect of the law restricted by the alteration of the words
in the course of the author's employment
to something like "which the author is employed to make." If he is employed to produce creative work, well and good; the master should receive the benefit of it. But if he is employed in a job where his boss says, "You are employed to work, not to think", the copyright in anything creative which he does produce should remain in the employee concerned.
Again, with regard to Clause 4, mention has been made of the position of the newspaper proprietor and the journalist. We have heard today from hon. Members who are professional journalists, but I think one point has not been mentioned in this connection which applies to the more humble Members who perhaps write an article now and then in the newspapers, and in this I must declare an interest.
Many hon. Members know the position. A Lobby correspondent comes along and says, "My editor would like an article from you on the charges for chiropody in the Health Service", and one is rather flattered and writes it. One receives, perhaps, a few guineas in payment, or nothing at all if the newspaper happens to be published in one's

constituency. Perhaps one strikes a streak of genius, and the article is sent to the syndicated Press.
But I think the more important point to those of us who write an article only infrequently is that if under this Bill the copyright in it is going to be vested in the newspaper proprietor, those happy phrases which we have used in it and which have prompted the newspaper proprietor to sell it to the syndicated Press we shall never be able to use again. We shall not be able to express our arguments in the same phraseology—and that may be very important in political life.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is a pity that does not apply here, too.

Mr. Page: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is a pity it does not apply here on many occasions.
The position becomes more complex when one studies subsection (4) and finds that case which is not simply one between the newspaper proprietor and the journalist—

Sir B. Baxter: May I interrupt my hon. Friend, as this is a subject of which I have some close knowledge? I do not know any newspaper editor in this country who, if he commissioned an article such as my hon. Friend has described and was able to syndicate it abroad, would not share on an equal basis with the author. I believe that is universal.

Mr. Page: I am greatly reassured by my hon. Friend's remarks.
I was about to refer to the case which is not a simple transaction between the newspaper proprietor and the journalist but which is a three-party transaction between a newspaper proprietor, an advertising agency and a manufacturer of goods to be advertised. Again, in this connection I must declare an interest as a director of an advertising agency.
The advertising agency prepares an advertising campaign—the designs, layout, copy and so on. It prepares that for publication in a newspaper, and therefore it comes within the terms of this Clause. At present, the copyright in a campaign of that sort is vested in the advertising agency, but under this Clause it would become split between the newspaper proprietor and the salaried staff of


the advertising agency by reason of subsections (2) and (4) working together. Under the present law, therefore, the advertising agency owns the copyright in the advertising matter. By this Bill it will be divested of that. Half will go to the newspaper proprietor and half even to the salaried staff.
What the position is if under this subsection an advertising agent employs a free-lance artist I dread to think. The free-lance artist is preparing the work:
in pursuance of a contract with another person
—that is to say, the advertising agent. The advertising agent is preparing the campaign:
in pursuance of a contract with another person
—that is to say, the newspaper proprietor. I am afraid that under those circumstances subsection (2, b) is almost unintelligible.
I think that the position of the advertising agent and the whole transaction of newspaper advertising has not been given any consideration in the drafting of Clause 4 and will have to be thought about again in Committee. In fact, I believe that the position of the advertising agency has escaped the attention of the draftsman altogether. If one turns to Clause 13—the "Cinematograph Films Act Clause "—by subsection (4)
…the maker of a cinematograph film shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the film by virtue of this section.
But by subsection (9) the maker is said to be
…the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the film are undertaken;
Then there is a proviso making an exception to that. It reads:
Provided that, in the case of a cinematograph film which is made in pursuance of a contract between the maker of the film and another person, for the purpose of advertising the latter person's goods or services or for use in connection with those goods or services, the latter person, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of Part VI of this Act, to any copyright subsisting in the film …
the "latter person "being the manufacturer of the goods to be advertised.
That is not the way, however, in which cinematograph films are produced for advertisement purposes. The contract is between the maker of the film and the advertising firm, not between the maker

of the film and the manufacturer of the goods to be advertised. In that case this proviso would not apply to the normal contract at all, and the result would be that the copyright of the film would remain with the maker of the film. I do not think that enough attention has been given to these advertising contracts when the Bill was drafted. Nevertheless, with those few words of criticism, I again express my welcome to and support for the Bill.

7.15 p.m

Dr. Barnett Stross: I must say that I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that he does at times write articles without fee. It makes one feel very reassured to be in reasonably good company, although I am reminded that there is art old phrase, first used in Babylon, 2,300 years ago, to the effect that the doctor who charges his patient nothing for his advice gives him advice worth what he charges.
So much has already been said on this Bill that there is not a great deal for me, with my limited knowledge, to say about it. I did notice, however, that both the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) were able to make Second Reading speeches. I thought that my hon. Friend's was the better speech because it was fuller and more critical.
For someone like myself to make a Second Reading speech on this Measure is almost impossible. I am fortified by the fact that it was not found easy in another place, where it was noted that the whole of this Bill, which is so important and so very comprehensive, is, after all, a series of Committee points strung together. One, therefore, has not to apologise too much if one stresses a particular part of it.
By and large, of course, we welcome the Bill. The advantages have been pointed out and are very apparent. The President, at the very beginning of his speech, highlighted the fact that British copyright owners will be able to obtain protection in the United States without their work being set up in type, printed and bound—in other words, manufactured —over there.
In that respect the Bill means that the United States and this country stand on


equal terms for the first time, and I think that everybody will welcome that. It is not only the author who is to get some advantage. Our publishers in Britain will also, through the export of books, gain an advantage that in the past they tended not to have. I need hardly add that we might even gain a few extra dollars, which might not be a bad thing, particularly in this direction and by this means.
one part of the price we shall have to pay was mentioned by the President. He mane it clear that one of the qualifications of the 1911 Act must disappear, namely, that during the last 25 years of the copyright life of a published work it will no longer be possible to re-publish as of right, merely by payment of a statutory royalty of 10 per cent. That is part of the price we pay, but I did not hear either the President or anyone else— and as I was out of the Chamber for a little time I must here apologise—say that we lose another safeguard or qualification. The power of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which today has power to over-ride any refusal of the copyright owner to permit republication of a work after the author's death, will disappear. I think I am right in saying that that, too, we must lose.
Generally speaking, I think that those two qualifications have to be given up. We are sorry about the first one in particular, for reasons given very clearly by hon. Members on both sides. It has been of advantage to the public that after 25 years a work that was wanted by the public could be obtained in a cheap edition. This we are now to lose, and it is a very great pity. None the less the advantages we get are such that I think we must accept the limitations with good grace.
The President touched also on the contents of Clauses 7 and 40. He said that research is not to be impeded as a result of copyright; that both our libraries and archives will receive, and be able to make copies of, articles to be used by students—although, of course, a reasonable limitation must be placed upon that facility. I note, too, that elsewhere in the Bill there will be no problem facing our schools or our education committees and that extracts from any kind

of work can be made for the use of students in schools.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether adult education will fall into this category, or will there be any special problem that has not been thought about that might impede the progress of adult classes? I have not noted it in the Bill, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give us his advice when he answers.
In another place there was considerable discussion about the attitude of the Musicians' Union to gramophone records. It is most understandable that musicians should try to protect their livelihood and say that where it is reasonably possible performances should be done by "live" performers. That is quite reasonable. I believe it is true that in the United States, where there is no protection whatsoever and the recording may be played anywhere, the practice became so obnoxious to living performers, the musicians, that there was a strike against the making of records of any kind that lasted for a considerable time. Therefore, I do not think it is reasonable to accuse musicians because they wish to protect their own means of livelihood.
Clause 4 has been under fire all day, and I certainly think that it Is a most obnoxious Clause. The hon. Member for Crosby spoke of the "masterservant" relationship. Of course, that is really what it deals with, and the dice seem to be loaded very heavily in favour of the master and not in favour of the servant, and the House must do what my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said—protect especially people such as authors and artists because they have so little capacity for protecting their own personal business interests. 1f we here do not do it, no one anywhere else will.
It is worth while considering some of the provisions of Clause 4. I do not apologise for doing so, because everybody else has had a go at them, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I do also. I shall not say anything about subsection (2) because I do not know very much about newspaper men, and the subsection has been dealt with already. I was once asked by a great national newspaper to write an article, and I wrote one of great length, the usual 2,000 or 3,000 words, but that newspaper forgot to send me any money for


it. However, I shall now come to something more important than that.
Subsection (3) says:
Subject to the last preceding subsection, where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this Part of this Act.
I think that this is in part puzzling and in part obnoxious. It is obnoxious because it takes away provisions of the 1911 Act.
I have been told more than once by painters, friends of mine, that automatically the copyright rests with them unless they specially assign it away on request, and that is a legal document. That is what I have been told. They have given me specific instances of photographs taken of their works without their permission, and they have been able to obtain money because they have held the copyright.
The Parliamentary Secretary seems in doubt about it, but I am telling him what they have told me, and they have been paid in such cases. One of them is now exhibiting in the Royal Academy. He is quite a good painter. He has told me that he has done very well out of this activity. So I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give this consideration. I think I am right in saying that under the 1911 Act, unless he assigns it away, the copyright belongs to the artist.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Not if he was commissioned specifically to do the portrait or painting in question. Some of the hon. Gentleman's eminent artistic friends may, of course, have been painting some of their subjects other than by commission.

Dr. Stross: Yes, that may be. The cases to which they were referring are those to which I am referring, to works purchased from the studio of the artist. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in that case the artist does hold the copyright, the portrait, if it be a portrait, not having been commissioned by the sitter. I see the difference.
Subsection (3) contains the words
…photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making or an engraving….

but does not say anything about sculptures or the making of a bust. In Clause 3 (1) "artistic work" is described as including "sculptures". It means
…paintings, sculptures, drawings, engravings and photographs…,
In Clause 4 there is no mention of sculptures. Does that mean that if the Parliamentary Secretary should wish to have his features, as it were, immortalised in bronze by sitting for a sculptor, and takes the bronze home—of course, originally the likeness would have been in a plastic material, in clay—he can reproduce it because he has the copyright?
That is the question I ask him. Suppose he wants to give to the members of the Cabinet, and to the other Parliamentary Secretaries, and to those who sit behind him, and, perhaps, to his constituents copies of the bronze of his delectable features, has he the right so to dilute the work of the eminent sculptor who makes it? I should like him to give this thought, because if by the Bill that is possible, I think it is quite wrong. It is a mistake, and we should not do it, and we must have safeguards against it.
I gather that I am right and that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me that by the Act of 1911, apart from commissioned portraits, automatically the copyright vests with the artist, other than the copyright in those things which are strictly commissioned. This right is now to be taken away, and this is what has been called the "erosion of the principle of copyright."
Artists, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary, do not always make a very good living, whether they be sculptors or painters. Indeed, it is very dubious whether there are more than a few hundred who make £750 a year gross. There are a few who do very well, but they are very few and can be counted upon the fingers of the two hands. In Clause 4 we take away a little more of their rights, and that is a mistake and we should not do it.
In France, it is recognised that artists, painters, sculptors need special protection, and they get it, but not individually. They get it in this way. It is recognised that paintings and pieces of sculpture sell not once only, but several times. That is to say, the first purchasers


sell them to others, and sometimes at very enhanced prices—sometimes.
In France, a portion of that enhanced price is taken away by a tax and is kept in a common pool and is used for young artists, to endow them with scholarships, and for older artists who fall into poverty, so that they may have some financial help. I think we might have considered something like that for artists, and authors, too, if necessary, rather than take away from them a right which possibly may have been of some financial assistance to them up to now, an assistance which should be kept in the future, since we are taking the right away.
Most of us on this side of the House feel very strongly that we must do everything we possibly can to see that those who have intrinsic copyright in their work, or those who create things out of their minds for the pleasure or education or assistance of mankind, should have from us in this House as much protection as possible. I know, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be surprised if in Committee everything is done to try to see that Clause 4 is strengthened for that purpose.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I agree with those who have said that a Second Reading debate on a Bill like this is bound to be largely a succession of Committee points. I do not think that they should be developed at great length at this stage, though it is right that the Government should have an indication of the points with which they will be asked to deal in detail later on.
I feel that with that introduction I might be allowed to make my small contribution to discussion of Clause 4. It arises from what has been said about advertisements in newspapers. I have no interest in an advertising agency, but I am concerned as to what the position of the advertising agent may be under the Clause if it remains unamended.
Clause 4 (2) provides for the case of
…a literary, dramatic or artistic work…made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical…in the course of the author's employment by another person under a contract of service…or in pursuance of a contract with another person providing specifically for the making of that work…

The advertising that is prepared for publication in a newspaper is normally, if not almost invariably, prepared both in the course of the author's employment and also in pursuance of a contract with another, different person who has ordered the making of a work for the purpose of its publication in a newspaper. In that case who becomes the owner of the copyright? I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can answer me now. I do not press him to do so, but I hope that he will provide a satisfactory answer in Committee.
I intervene in the debate, however, mainly because a great deal was said earlier about the provision of broadcast relay stations. I tried to follow the argument which was put forward for excluding the reference to broadcast relay stations in Clause 46. I have to declare an interest here. I am a director of a company which, among other things, operates some of these stations, both at home and abroad. This point was raised in another place but was not pressed there. I think that there was not a full debate, but I hope that the Government will resist pressure in the House or later in Committee to alter the position as now set out in the Bill.
I say that because I think that the argument put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House is based upon a misunderstanding of what broadcast relay stations really are and what they do. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to broadcasting stations in Hong Kong and Malta in particular—and there are others— where programmes are put out to listeners in their homes. But that is not, as I understand it, the operation of a relay service. That is broadcasting by wire and in every case where these companies originate the programmes which they give over their wires to their subscribers they pay the copyright fees for the matter they originate, in exactly the same way as does the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. or anyone else.
In this country, however, relay stations originate nothing at all. They are not allowed to originate any programme under the terms of their licence from the Postmaster-General. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred to that licence. I do not know whether he has ever seen one. I should imagine not, from the way he referred


to it. I assure him that it is a formidable document and leaves very little in the way of powers which the PostmasterGeneral may require to control the stations and, above all, to see that they do not originate any programme.
These companies are simply an alternative method of transmitting the established programmes of the B.B.C. arid, to a smaller extent, foreign programmes to subscribers who have a different piece of mechanism in their homes but who pay exactly the same licence fee as is paid by every listener to wireless broadcasts. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) and the hon. Member for Islington, East drew a picture of a possible expansion and development of these services to something quite different from what they are now. If that happens, it can be dealt with by the same means of control as that which operates now. If it were thought desirable, for example, to restrict those companies which were relaying over the wires the television programme of the I.T.A. to a limited geographical area, there are ways of doing it, but it does not seem to me that the question of copyright enters into it at all.
To treat the reception of broadcast programmes in this country over the wire from a relayed service differently from reception by a wireless set is to put the two parties who are competing with each other for the listener's custom in a different position. I submit that that would be entirely wrong. It is illogical and it misunderstands the position of the relay services. I hope very much, therefore, that the Government will stick by the recommendation of the Copyright Committee which said that no change should be made in this respect.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: I must apologise to the House and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for my inability to be here to hear their speeches. I never miss, as I am sure no other hon. Member does, a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale unless I cannot possibly avoid it. As for the President of the Board of Trade, whilst I sometimes find myself differing

from him in politics, my gratitude and that of my profession for the efforts which he is making in the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill to put an end to what is described in the Press as a slump at the Bar, which are all too welcome to members of my profession, is too great for my own political feelings to enter into this matter. I seriously apologise to him for not having been able to hear what he said.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill is complicated, technical and difficult. It lends itself mainly to discussion of Committee points, but before we reach them there are certain points of approach and of philosophy which, as far as possible, we should try to make clear. In the first place, it is obvious and scarcely needs to be stated that a balance must be struck between the public interest and the interests of creative artists whether they be writers, painters or others, and the necessary business interests of those, who, like publishers, earn their living by dealing in the commodities which writers and artists create. All those interests have to be borne in mind and balanced one against the other.
The first question on which there has been any difference of philosophy between hon. Members during the debate has been that of the life of copyright. The hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) in particular appears to emerge as an advocate of perpetual copyright. On the other hand my hon. Friends the Members for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) emerge amongst those who have fears that the present life of 50 years envisaged in the Bill is too long, that it represents a retrograde step in comparison with the provisions that obtain in the 1911 Act, which we are in course of repealing, and that the interests of the public in particular require a good deal of latitude in the second 25 years of the life of the copyright in respect of the production of cheap editions.
In my opinion the case for a perpetual copyright is a sentimental one. I say that with all respect. I do not think it is desirable on any ground to perpetuate long terms during which descendants may acquire large incomes merely because of the artistic merits of their great grandparents or great, great grandparents. It is opposed to the economic


doctrines for which my party stands. But apart from those, it would be impracticable in the case of copyright and would not serve the purpose which the hon. Member for Southgate had in mind. I feel that the effect of creating a perpetual copyright would be merely to stimulate a new branch of an existing form of dealing in the products of other people's brains and talents, and that the business men would soon step in to obtain for the benefit of themselves what this House might intend for the benefit of the artists' descendants.
For myself I am much more disposed to share the fears and view of my hon. Friends the Members for Stechford and Stoke-on-Trent, Central than I am on this issue to share the views of the hon. Member for Southgate. Subject to a general equity, and generally sensible arrangements being reached between the three sets of interested persons—the public, to whom we in this House owe a primary duty, the artistic producers and the business producers—the over-riding claim should be that international arrangements should be made on as uniform a basis as possible. I agree entirely with one hon. Member who pointed out that international uniformity was in the best interests of authors and artists.. Therefore I think that our second guiding principle should be the maximum measure of uniformity which it is possible to obtain internationally. So obviously we on this side of the House welcome the ratification of the 1952 convention.
Before passing to a few points of relative detail, I shall select one or two Clauses which are to be welcomed. The first is a small point in itself but it has been attacked in certain quarters, namely, the continuance of the obligation to send copies of new works to the libraries of deposit. It may be a small disadvantage to the trade to have to comply with this obligation, but I am sure that it is in the wider interests of learning and of the public that the practice should be continued.
I also agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) in which he welcomed the fact that no exception was made in this respect for Trinity College, Dublin, in spite of the constitutional changes that took place in 1948. I am sure that this is in the interests of international comity and good

feeling between this country and Ireland, and I welcome it.
I can welcome generally too the provisions of Clauses 13 and 14 dealing with the copyright of films and in broadcasting. I listened with interest and attention to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) in relation to Clause 14. However, having heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said on this matter, I must confess that I feel this is a question which in Committee we shall have to investigate. If any Amendments are framed to put into a more specific form the points made by my hon. Friend, I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will seriously consider supporting them.
Now, passing to more specifically legal provisions in the Bill, I welcome particularly subsection (4) of Clause 18 and also Clause 19. Clause 18 (4) makes is possible—I believe for the first time, though I do not speak as an expert—for exemplary damages to be obtained in a copyright action where there are particularly bad features in the infringement. Secondly, I feel sure that the counterbalancing provision in Clause 19, which limits the obligations of, so to speak, an innocent infringer to rendering an account of his profits, is also wise and just.
Finally, on this class of point, it seems to me that the general provisions for the shape and structure of the Performing Right Tribunal are sound. I believe that the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), that it might be helpful to introduce a more precise definition of the members who should serve, apart from the legal chairman, and that this might be as useful to the Board of Trade as to anybody else, is a sound one. I know that there are criticisms that various bodies have of the provisions in the Clauses dealing with the Performing Right Tribunal, but they seem to me eminently matters which could be more fruitfully pursued in Committee than at the present stage.
Passing to the Clauses which have been singled out for critical attention in the course of the debate, Clause 4 certainly stands high in the list of candidates for consideration. So many hon.


Members have singled it out for criticism that it would be difficult and not very profitable to select any of them by name. Generally speaking, the provisions of subsection (2) have been a target for a general attack. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) represents, so to speak, the whole-hogging school of critics of the Clause. He said that the whole of the provisions of subsection (2) were wrong.
I would remind the House what the object of subsection (2) is. It will probably be more useful to read its words than to make any interpretation of my own. It says:
Where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and is so made either (a) in the course of the author's employment by another person under a contract of service or apprenticeship, or (b) in pursuance of a contract with another person providing specifically for the making of that work for the purpose of its being so published, that other person shall be entitled to the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published; but in other respects the author shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part of this Act.
I think it is right at the outset to emphasise the last sub-sentence. Were we today in the happy position that we occupied in the middle of the nineteenth century, of having a great publication like the Edinburgh Review with contributors of the stature of Macaulay, when Macaulay published his contributions to the Edinburgh Review in the form of his Essays, it would not be the case that under the subsection as it stands he would be caught and the copyright would vest in the Edinburgh Review. As the Clause stands, the copyright would remain vested firmly in Macaulay. Therefore, whatever mischief there may be in the subsection, it is a limited one.
Speaking for myself, I feel that a sharp distinction exists between (a) and (b); that is to say, between the man who writes an article in the course of his employment and the man who writes an article because he is commissioned to do so. In the first place, it seems to me that if the sort of provision intended in relation to commissioned works is desirable which I doubt—it is highly illogical. What distinction exists between the man who writes a commissioned

article and the man who writes an article because he feels disposed to express his view in the Press for a particular purpose and sends in his article and has it published? But, under the Clause as it stands, the man who writes a commissioned article would be caught and the man who writes an article which is not commissioned would escape. I see no valid reason whatever for the distinction.
Passing from that rather narrow objection to the broader question, and taking into account what so many hon. Members from this side of the House have stressed, with which I entirely agree—that, while retaining this balance between the three parties, one wants primarily to encourage the production of worth while works in any sphere—I should have thought that there was no case for the copyright of a commissioned work—which may, for instance, include an article by an eminent scientist on some measure such as automation in which the author is in the article producing for the benefit of the public his knowledge of both science and its application—vesting in the person who owns the newspaper in which it appears. I very much hope that at a later stage the President of the Board of Trade will feel able to accept an Amendment to delete the provision.
As for the other class brought within the Clause—the man who normally writes articles in the course of his employment, who has as part of the resources on which he draws to find his material all the advantages in obtaining from his employers information and in securing payment of his expenses in himself obtaining information, I feel that we are on very much less strong ground in making any criticism. While, no doubt, any Amendments in this sense will have the sympathetic consideration of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I certainly would not feel justified in saying now that we should support them.
Clause 5 deals with infringements by importation, sale and other dealings. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford dealt in some detail with the case against subsection (5), which deals with the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work being:
…infringed by any person who permits a place of public entertainment to be used for a performance in public of the work, where the performance constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work…


That is fair enough, and none of us would object to it. However, there then comes this proviso:
provided that this subsection shall not apply in a case where the person permitting the place to be so used—

(a) was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the performance would be an infringement of the copyright, or
(b) gave the permission gratuitously, or for a consideration which was only nominal or (if more than nominal) did nat exceed a reasonable estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him in consequence of the use of the place for the performance"

My hon. Friend's thunders were largely directed against paragraph (b) of that proviso. He thought it was very wrong that authors who had their works performed for charity, for example, should not be entitled to a fee from charities in which they might have no interest, or might even have the opposite of an interest.
There is a certain force in that, but I should regard paragraph (a) with even greater suspicion. The mere fact that the owner of the premises where the infringement takes place was not aware that the performance would be an infringement of the copyright is a very good reason for limiting his responsibility to accounting for his profits, but I cannot see why it is a reason for giving him complete and absolute immunity. In Committee the whole of the proviso will come up for a good deal of criticism and at least some rigorous examination.
Some criticism has been directed against Clause 6 (7) which deals with an assignment or licence which authorises a person to broadcast literary, dramatic or musical work where the reproduction takes the form of a record or cinematograph film and the record or the film is subsequently broadcast. Under that subsection the reproduction does not constitute an infringement unless the reproduction is used for any purpose other than that of broadcasting in accordance with the assignment or licence, or the reproduction is not destroyed before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it is first used for broadcasting. That constitutes some inroad into the rights of authors and is another matter which will require examination in Committee.
We then had a great deal of criticism—probably second only to that on Clause 4—of Clause 8, which is sometimes referred to and which was sometimes referred in the debates in another place as providing for a compulsory licence. Where a musical work is reproduced once by way of a recording, it is no infringement under Clause 8 to reproduce it again, provided that the reproducer makes a certain payment of 6¼ per cent. of the purchase price.
I can see no reason why the composer of a musical work should not be at perfect liberty to make his own bargain. I do not see why he should be restricted, once he has allowed a record to be made, to a particular proportion. After all, with very few exceptions, composers of music are not particularly opulent persons. They are persons who deserve all encouragement, if the art of music is to flourish. Where a composer is fortunate enough to write a piece of music for which there is a demand for a recording, then he is entitled to be able to go into the market and make his own bargain with those who wish to exploit his production.
I especially ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say how far he finds Clause 8 consistent with Article 11 of the 1949 Brussels Convention. I put the same question about Clause 13 which deals with the copyright in films and which provides in effect that once a film has been produced the copyright is to last for 50 years in everything that makes up the film, whereas the film itself may consist of elements whose reproduction, but for the contract between the author and the producers of the film, would constitute a breach of copyright. That is a provision which clearly takes some element of protection from the author whose product is used in such a film. How does the Parliamentary Secretary reconcile Clause 13 with Article 14 of the Brussels Convention?
I have said that this is a complicated and difficult Bill. One can take a great deal of time in analysing its various Clauses and in the course of the debate there have been a great many very interesting and valuable criticisms of individual Clauses, all of which will require detailed and serious consideration in Committee. I have tried to outline a few of the more important points which


will have to form the subject of scrutiny in Committee.
In the meantime, I can only repeat what has been said by other speakers—that in general, on this side of the House, we welcome the Bill, particularly because it involves ratification of the international Brussels Convention, and all our efforts will be directed, particularly in the interests of authors and those in a similar position, towards improving the Bill, which we already regard as a good one.

8.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I am not sure whether I am correct, but it is my impression that this is the first time that the House has had the pleasure of hearing the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) speaking at the Dispatch Box. If that be the case, I am sure that I express the unanimous view of the House in saying how pleased we were to hear him in what is a new but, I hope, will become an habitual rôle. I say that with particular pleasure, as one who has had the privilege of knowing him and admiring -his talents and qualities for nearly 30 years.
We have had a constructive, thoughtful, stimulating and wholly helpful discussion upon the subject of the Bill. It is certainly not a subject which has evoked passions or party controversy, and I very much appreciate the general welcome which has been given in generous terms to most of the things which the Bill seeks to do. I do not mean that no controversy exists in regard to its provisions. I had already realised, during the last six months or so, when it has been my duty to have regard to these matters, that controversy does exist—and it has been shown to exist in this House today.
Upon these matters of controversy opposing positions are strenuously and energetically maintained, but there is no general clash or conflict extending over the whole broad field of copyright. Opposing forces face each other not in formal array. like the warriors of the eighteenth century, but much more as in the isolated individual contests of Homeric days. It is not for the Government or, I should think, the House of Commons to participate in these individual contests; nor is it for us to be mere arbiters in these individual

disputes. It is true that we have a duty to listen to the representations of partisans and seek to take their views into account, but our duty goes beyond the mere seeking to resolve those conflicts.
As the hon. and learned Member so well expressed it, we have a primary duty to the public to see that this revision and restatement of our copyright law, undertaken after 45 years, is worthy of our great cultural heritage and future, to which we confidently look forward. It is not an easy task, because it will be clear to the House that there are difficult and intractable problems in this necessarily technical and complex subject. We obviously have some very difficult questions ahead of us in Committee, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member and also to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and other hon. Members who have given notice of the sort of points with which we shall there be faced.
Our labours there will be easier than they might have been, however, owing to the devoted and successful labours of another place, to which the hon. Member for Rossendale has already paid tribute. In those discussions many thorny problems reached agreed and, I might even say, acclaimed solutions. In those discussions the Government approached all these difficult problems in a receptive and reasonable way. We shall certainly consider carefully and sympathetically everything that has been said today by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and seek the co-operation of the Committee in the further improvement of the Bill.
With that introductory reference to our general attitude in these matters I shall now seek to deal with the specific points which have been raised in the course of our discussion today. As has been said, there have been some differences of philosophy. Some hon. Members advanced general propositions or defined general attitudes. Among those was my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) who took up the attitude of what the hon. and learned Member called an advocate of perpetual copyright. He told the House not only sincerely, as he claimed, but with that customary felicity of phrase which we expect from him. of the disadvantageous position—as he sees it—of the descendants of literary artists as compared with


those of other creators of wealth, and in that view he was joined for a moment or two, in an uneasy alliance, by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who also referred to the illogical treatment of the descendants of authors and artists.
In looking at this question one must have regard to one's primary duty to the public and the community. In his very clear and luminous speech the hon. Member for Rossendale put forward three antitheses, and made his election in each. He said that in the case of the composer as against the gramophone company, he was on the side of the composer; in the case of the journalist as against the newspaper proprietor, he was for the journalist; and in the case of the script writer as opposed to the film company, he was on the side of the script writer.
Over and above those antitheses, however, we have the duty to be on the side of the public community, not only as it exists today but as represented hereafter by posterity. Therefore, in answer to the general point, I must respectfully echo to my hon. Friend what was so well pointed out by my right hon. Friend earlier this afternoon, namely, that we have to take into account the interest of posterity in having the freest and fullest access to literary works created by those who have gone before them.
Certain matters in copyright are fairly well established. It has always been recognised that there should be a limit to copyright protection, and that there must come a time when those creative works come into what is called the public domain. We are legislating for life plus 50 years which is the broad international requirement as defined by the Berne Convention. It is inevitable that it may work more hardly for some than for others. My hon. Friend mentioned, very sympathetically, the case of Oscar Wilde. It is true that there we had an author who combined a very prolific output with an unfortunately early death, and that life plus 50 years tends to militate against him. But if Oscar Wilde had lived as long as Bernard Shaw this problem would not have arisen. I am afraid that in this department of life, as in any other, we cannot entirely iron out the inconsistencles between individual cases.
As the hon. and learned Member said, in antithesis to the points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate—and at one point by the hon. Member for Deptford—we have the point of view of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who expressed regret at the passing of the provision contained in Section 3 of the Copyright Act, 1911, which enabled another publisher, upon payment of a 10 per cent. royalty, to publish the work of a deceased author 25 years after his death, a1beit the full period of copyright protection of 50 years had not expired.
The hon. Member canvassed the merits of this argument with his customary skill and persuasiveness, and invited me to follow suit. I must ask to be excused canvassing the merits of this case, however, because—as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) and also, I believe, by the hon. Member for Stokeon-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross)—we are bound by the Brussels revision of the Berne Convention.
If the hon. Member wants to pursue that matter a little more closely, if he would look at the document on the Convention which was published by the Board of Trade in 1949, he will see that on page 12 it says:
The deletion of paragraph (2) of the Rome text"—
that is the previous revision of 1928—
makes it necessary for all countries of the Union to give a minimum period of protection of 50 years after the death of an author, except in the case of works mentioned in the new paragraph (3), in which cinematographic works and works of applied art have been included. It involves the repeal of the proviso to Section 3, and of Section 4 of the Copyright Act, 1911.
I am afraid that we are bound by that and are not really free in this matter to canvass merits one way or the other. I think it has been universally agreed, as was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-onTrent, Central, that the price we have had to pay in the amending of our law to secure a continued agreement with the Berne Convention is very small indeed.
The hon. Member did in fact draw attention to the only other amendment which I think we have had to make, which is the revocation of the Privy Council procedure in Section 4 of the old Copyright Act, 1911. He indicated he did not think that was of very great importance.


I am happy to be able to tell him and the House that so far as we can trace that procedure has never been set in motion.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in the argument about the Berne Convention, but could he tell us to what extent we have to be retrospective in this matter in order to fit in with the terms of the Berne Convention? Am I right in assuming that we shall not have to go back and say that authors who have full copyright will have to come in so that cheap publications might come in? Will he also indicate whether during the Committee stage there will be an opportunity for compromise under the Berne Convention which will limit the protection of authors who die after the Convention comes into operation?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think the hon. Gentleman is right on the first point. As to the second point, I think that we are limited as to the position at which the Act comes into force, but I will certainly look into that matter further with a view to informing the hon. Member during the Committee stage.
I will now deal with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn). He referred to some aspects of the Bill outside those Clauses which were the cause of main comment. He raised three points; firstly in regard to the libraries provisions in Clause 7, secondly in regard to the application of subsection (4) of Clause 4 to university professors and, thirdly, in regard to the question of the lay members of the Performing Right Tribunal.
On the libraries provisions, my hon. Friend asked for an assurance as to consultation with the libraries, and that I can give him most readily. He will appreciate that under this Clause it is for the Board of Trade to make regulations as to the class of libraries concerned and conditions. I can certainly give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that before making these regulations we shall consult the societies and organisations concerned—such as the Royal Society, the Libraries Association and anyone else my hon. Friend thinks we should consult.
I shall be coming back to the generality of Clause 4 a little later, but in regard to its application to university professors

there is no change in this Bill from the position as it exists now under the 1911 Act. Each case, I think, actually turns on the particular facts of the individual case, but there is certainly no change in the position.
The third point my hon. Friend was good enough to make was in regard to the lay members of the Tribunal and that was also referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Walsall. I am not sure whether in the case of this Tribunal a statutory definition as to the qualities of these gentlemen would necessarily be helpful. It is true that we have got that for the Restrictive Practices Court in our other Bill, but of course the functions are widely different and I think it may be better to leave this matter at large. As to the sort of qualities and experience required, I need not say that we would appreciate the views of hon. Members as to what they should be.
At this point, may I deal with another individual question raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) in regard to the use of radio in workers' staff retiring rooms. We have had some correspondence about this matter. The hon. Member referred to part of a letter which I wrote to him on 23rd April. I appreciate that he wished to save the time of the House, but the rest of the letter was perhaps a little less bald and unhelpful than the part he quoted might possibly have seemed to have been. This is a difficult matter, as are all matters which depend on legal interpretation.
The hon. Member suggested that we might assimilate the provisions of subsection (7, b) of Clause 12 dealing with gramophone records to the case of these radio performances. Having looked at that subsection, I am not at all sure that those words would cover that case if they were so applied. Apart from that, the hon. Member will appreciate that Clause 12 deals simply with the performing right in the gramophone record. The difficulty in this case arises from the composer's performing right—the Performing Right Society right—in which all sorts of complications of the Convention and so on arise. I shall certainly have another look at the matter and see if we can do anything more to help, but, as he will understand, the position is a little difficult.
Perhaps I may group together those matters which have been the subject of main discussion in connection with particular Clauses. The first concerns the period of copyright, with particular reference to photographs, mentioned by the hon. Member for Rossendale and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), who I know has great skill in this field and who puts forward very sympathetically the point of view of photographers. The position, quite shortly, is that the Copyright Committee recommended the institution of a 25-year period of copyright for what it called quasi-mechanical or quasi-industrial subjects. The Committee chose that period as being part-way between the 50-year period of full copyright protection and the 16-year period which is the period of copyright in the case of patents for industrial subjects.
In another place an Amendment was accepted to increase film copyright to 50 years, but the other periods remain at 25 years. In most cases those concerned seem to have acquiesced in that position, although there is this claim that photographs should be placed on all fours with films and given a period of protection of 50 years.
I do not say for one moment that there is no artistic contribution in a photograph. I know better than to do that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. No doubt there is an artistic contribution, but what we have to determine is whether there is an artistic contribution equivalent in length and scope to the film director's creative and co-ordinating function in a film which may run for a couple of hours in public performance. I am bound to say that, on the realities of the matter, I do not think there is a comparable artistic contribution in the two cases, and I think that photographs probably fall more properly into the other category than into the category of films.
The hon. Member for Rossendale said that we differentiated against photographs, but of course we are not differentiating against photographs here. A photograph is different in that respect from a film and it is different from a portrait and an engraving, because one is in essence a mechanical process, albeit

not without artistic contribution, and the others are done by hand.
The House will appreciate that on Report in another place the position in regard to photographs was improved from both points of view—from the point of view of both the private person and the commercial photographer. Certain benefits flow from the fact that the Bill now provides that copyright in photographs will run not from the date of taking them but from the date of publication. That has two results. First, unpublished photographs enjoy an indefinite protection instead of the protection of only 25 years laid down before the Amendment. That assimilates the position of private unpublished photographs to the position of private letters or diaries which have not been published. In some of the cases which the hon. Member for Rossendale put forward, he overlooked the fact that unless one publishes a photograph one has an indefinite copyright protection in the Bill as it stands.
Secondly, the Amendment benefits in a proper case the commercial photographer, because where he takes his photograph but does not publish it for some time—because it is not topical or for some other reason and later it is properly published, then his commercial exploitation of that photograph dates, as it should, from the date of publication.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said he would like to differentiate between photographs of people, where he thought the copyright should go to the commissioner, and photographs of landscapes, where he thought it should rest with the author. I will certainly look at that, as at all his constructive and informed suggestions, but I am not optimistic enough to think that any change in the position concerning photographs will necessarily win universal acquiescence in all quarters.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred to the position of sculptures. The position of sculptures is different but simple; the copyright in a sculpture belongs to the sculptor, whether it is commissioned or not, and there is no difference between the position under the Bill and that under the 1911 Act. Perhaps, while referring to this, I may take out of its proper place his query about adult education and Clause 39. Under that Clause—Clause 39 (1, a)—one can


copy for adult education, but the position is different in respect of the performing rights, records and so on, because of the difficulty of finding a definition in that connection.
The next point of main controversy concerned gramophone records, and in this connection three points have been raised. The first concerns these ephemeral recordings. I say at once that I have no copyright in the use of the word "ephemeral" to describe something which seems to apply to 28 days. This point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans), who has had such experience in this field. Under Clause 6 (7), a person who holds a copyright licence to broadcast may also make a record on two conditions—first of all, that it is used solely for the broadcast and, secondly, that it is destroyed within 28 days.
This is, as the House will appreciate, a most useful provision both to the B.B.C. and to individual busy performers who may not be available to go on a live show. It does mean, of course, as has been pointed out, that only one fee will now become payable, the performing right fee, and that, in my view, is appropriate because there is in fact only a broadcast performance. I appreciate that there are two fees payable now—the performing right fee and the mechanical right fee—but I think that is largely fortuitous, and I cannot accept that there is a case in equity for the payment of a double fee for copyright for what, in essence, is a single performance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey expressed the fear that the wording of the Clause might allow the making of further records from the initial records within a period of 28 days. It is not our intention that the Clause should allow that to be done. I assure my hon. Friend that I will examine the draft to make sure that that is not possible and if it does seem to be possible we will amend it, if necessary, in the Committee stage.
The next point with regard to gramophone records is the matter of compulsory licensing, which was again raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and other hon. Members. Here, the Bill continues the

principle of Section 19 of the 1911 Act. That is to say, if the copyright owner of an original musical work agrees to the manufacture of records for sale, other manufacturers are entitled to make similar records on two conditions—that notice of intention is given and that an appropriate royalty is paid.
The royalty will be fixed at 6¼ per cent. under the Bill. After one year, the Bill provides for a Board of Trade inquiry into the rates, with a view to fixing them for five years, and the Order fixing these rates will require an affirmative Resolution of the House. This continuance of the 1911 Act has been criticised today because of the technical developments which are said to have arisen in recent times, which make it more difficult for a composer to safeguard the quality of his performance. I appreciate the force of that point. As hon. Members who have read the proceedings in another place will know, very careful consideration has been given to try to meet it in two ways. Firstly, by seeking to differentiate the position between serious and non-serious music, and, secondly, by seeking to differentiate the position between long-playing and short-playing records. On examination, it was found that neither of these forms of differentiation was practicable or free from anomaly. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend said earlier this afternoon, we are faced with a straight and clear issue here all or nothing—whether to do away with the compulsory licensing provision altogether or not.
I must remind the House that, of course, in essence the compulsory licensing provision is an anti-monopoly provision. It is a provision to extend the scope of recording. After all that has been said in another discussion during the current Session of Parliament, I do not think that my right hon. Friend and I should be asked to introduce into this Bill a provision to go back on an antimonopoly provision which has stood the test of time for 45 years. On that basic question I think our answer must be clear. At the same time, I should like the House to know that we are still seeking ways of improving the position in the matter of fixing the rates and so forth.

Sir D. Gammans: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that there is every inducement on the part of the composer to have as many gramophone records as


possible reproducing his works? All the composer wants to be assured of is that these firms are reputable and will do justice to his works.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate that point, but it is covered by what I have already said; that it has not been found possible to differentiate in the way my hon. Friend would wish but, as he will see by looking at the Bill, it is possible to fix different rates in respect of different recordings. Anything that can be done within that general framework, without sacrificing the basic provision, which, as I say, has been the law of the country for 45 years, my hon. Friend may rest assured will be done, and we shall look forward to his practical assistance in this regard in Committee.

Sir D. Gammans: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree. therefore. that to use the monopoly argument does not really fit this case at all? The whole inducement on the part of the composer is to have as wide a selection, for his own benefit, of people reproducing his works as possible. I suggest that to rule this out on the grounds of monopoly does not quite fit the case.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not say that it was solely on that ground but was telling the House what was the original principle that animated Parliament, so far as one can tell, to include this in the 1911 Act. If my hon. Friend is able between now and the Committee stage to put forward any constructive suggestions, he knows how happy we will be to consider them.
The third main point about records was this matter of records first coming from the United States. As I understand it, the problem arises because a large proportion of the repertoire of the British companies is derived from American recordings. We appreciate the importance of this point, and also that it is impracticable to achieve simultaneous publication, in all cases, in the United States and in the United Kingdom.
What we cannot do is to allow subsequent publication in the United Kingdom to supersede first publication as the test to be applied. That is for the very good and basic reason that during the interval between publication in the United States and publication in the United Kingdom

the record is in the public domain in this country and can be made or imported without copyright infringement. That being so, it is impracticable—and so far as I know unprecedented—to put into the private domain something which has already been in the public domain.
I think there is, however, a practical solution to this problem. It is probable that the provisions of Clause 12 relating to gramophone records will be applied by Order in Council under Clause 31 to Canada or extended under Clause 30 to Colonies such as the Bahamas which, I understand, form part of the common market with the United States in this regard. If one has a gramophone record published in Canada or such Colonies as are part of the common market within 30 days of the publication in the United States which, I understand, would be the ordinary course, it would be all right for copyright purposes.
The next point with which I wish to deal is this difficult technical question of the broadcast relays, raised again by the bon. Members for Rossendale and Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop). It is quite true that this Bill does not give copyright protection to works which are piped by the operation of broadcast relay stations. That is clear from Clause 2 (5) and Clause 46 (3) (a).
The position was not quite clear under the old law, but now it is clear under this Bill. As I understand it, from what hon. Members have said, there is no particular difficulty in the way that the matter has worked in this country up to now, by reason of the fact that the copyright owners receive their fees from the B.B.C. based on the inclusion of the relay audiences. These audiences are taken into account because the relay companies require Post Office licences, and the B.B.C. pays the Performing Right Society on the basis of all holders of Post Office licences.
I appreciate that although there is nothing particularly wrong in the present operation, there are certain apprehensions. There is the apprehension with regard to television which was voiced by various hon. Members. There is the position in the Colonies, and in particular in Hong Kong and Malta, to


which reference has been made today, and I suppose there is also the position concerning foreign broadcasts which are picked up and piped in this country.
We should like to meet those apprehensions so far as we fairly can without infringing any of the principles of copyright law. We have been thinking about it and we are continuing to try to find appropriate solutions. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is going to discuss the matter with the representatives of the relay companies, and I hope that by the time we get to the Committee stage I shall be able to be more clear and comprehensive in what I have to suggest on this point.
May I now come to the difficult questions which have been raised on Clause 4 relating to the ownership of copyright in commissioned works, and contracts of service. These questions have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and the hon. Members for Rossendale. Deptford, Stoke-on-Trent, Central and Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who has informed me that unfortunately he is not able to be here at the moment.
The question is where copyright should lie in respect of articles written by journalists, whether commissioned or whether written under a contract of service. I should like to make this reference to some earlier exchanges. The hon. Member for Deptford entered into some badinage about what he called my frolic in Fleet Street ten or eleven years ago. The newspaper which he was then managing was not the only national newspaper for which I have been privileged to write. I am sure that in all cases I was paid more than the articles were worth, and I certainly have no sense of grievance against any of the newspapers. My relations were at all times most amicable.
I personally do not look at this problem merely as a dry or academic problem, because that experience gave me a little knowledge and many friendships both on the managerial and proprietorial sides and amongst working journalists themselves; and although I have long ago lost the writing connections, I have been happy to have preserved the friendships that arose from them. I have listened most carefully to everything that has been said by hon.

Members about this situation. The main criticism, probably, is that the newspaper proprietors are put in what is claimed to be an unreasonably preferential position in regard to the syndication of articles.
Under the Bill as at present drafted, the splitting of the copyright puts the staff man—I prefer the phrase "staff man" to the phrase used by one of my hon. Friends, "a working journalist", because, presumably, they all work—in a better position than he was under the 1911 Act whereas the commissioned article man is placed in a worse position than he was under the 1911 Act. Of course, it is quite true that one might argue that those who want a different procedure can contract differently from what the Clause provides, but I think there is a lot of force in what has been said that that tends to be rather an academic type of argument.
Without entering into any commitment about those matters, our present thinking is that there is a strong case for making an alteration in favour of the commissioned article man, and we will certainly consider the propriety and possibility of introducing an Amendment to that end on the Committee stage. I do not thereby exclude the case of the staff man under a contract of service, but it is, of course, as has been proclaimed by two speakers on the Front Bench opposite, a very different case. Indeed, that differentiation is, I think, made by most of the members of the Joint Copyright Council. Therefore, if we can leave the position in that way at present, we will certainly listen on the Committee stage to anything further that is said in regard to assimilating the position of the staff journalist to that of the commissioned journalist, but the House is mindful of the difference in the two positions.
This has necessarily been a long debate. It has covered a lot of ground and I have tried to deal at any rate with most of the points that have been raised. We shall, of course, have further opportunities to consider the detail of the Bill in Committee and on Report. Meanwhile, we are very grateful to the House for what I apprehend will be a unanimous assent to the Second Reading and look forward to further co-operation so that we can pursue together the task of making the Copyright Bill of 1956 a worthy successor to its great forerunner


and worthy of the culture which it is designed to serve and to protect.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — COPYRIGHT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision in respect of copyright and related matters, in substitution for the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1911, and other enactments relating thereto, it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the remuneration and allowances of members, officers and servants of the Performing Right Tribunal to be established under the said Act of the present Session, and of such other expenses of that tribunal as may be determined under the said Act to be so payable;
(b)the payment into the Exchequer, in the like manner as money collected on account of customs, of fees paid in pursuance of regulations made under the said Act by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ESTATE DUTY (ANGLO-INDIAN AGREEMENT)

8: 55 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (India) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 13th April.
It is common ground among hon. Members in all parts of the House that it is desirable, where possible, to achieve double taxation agreements with countries both within and without the Commonwealth. In this case, the story is as follows. Until the present Indian Estate Duty law was enacted, in 1953, credits for any Indian death duties could be allowed against British duty under powers contained in our Finance Act, 1894. A

new Indian Estate Duty law was passed in 1953, however, an effect of which was that the relevant Order in Council of ours had to be revoked; and since the autumn of 1953 there has been no relief from our estate duty in respect of payment of Indian estate duty.
It has become known to the House, however, through Questions and Answers on various occasions, that negotiations have been proceeding with the Indian Government to see whether we could achieve a double taxation agreement in respect of estate duty. It has not been easy, but an Agreement was signed in India in April this year. It is now for me to present the result to the House, because an Agreement of this kind has to be confirmed by the House before it can take effect.
It has fallen to me to present to the House a number of Double Taxation Agreements in the past, and I have sensed on those occasions that what the House wishes of me is not to go through all the detail in so far as that is in standard form, but to bring to the attention of the House any special and unusual features. In this case, it fortunately happens that the Indian Estate Duty law of 1953 is on generally the same lines as our estate duty law, and so there are no fundamental difficulties, except one which I shall mention. In all other respects the Agreement follows the general pattern of our similar death duty agreements with Canada, South Africa and the United States, all of which have been approved by the House.
There is, however, one particular feature of the Indian Estate Duty law which it is my duty to describe. It is a provision which, in certain circumstances, makes a British company liable for Indian Estate Duty on the value of a deceased shareholder's shares. This provision is contained in Section 84 of the Indian Act of 1953, and it operates as follows.
Where a non-resident shareholder in a non-Indian company dies, and where the company has been treated for two out of the last three years as resident in India for Income Tax purposes under the rule which makes a company resident there if more than half of its total income is derived from India, estate duty at the rate of 7½ per cent. is chargeable on the value of the shares and recoverable from


the company. There is an exemption limit of 5,000 rupees, equivalent to about £375.
Representations were made to the Indian Government against this charge on companies, before their Estate Duty Bill of 1953 became law. It was represented and, we felt, justifiably represented to them that it was essentially extra-territorial taxation, for neither the owner of the property nor the property is in India and, on accepted principles, this property being in the jurisdiction of this country should not be charged with Indian Estate Duty. It will be realised, of course, that the burden of duty falls not on the estate of the deceased shareholder, but on the company itself. However, the Indian Government were not prepared to alter their intentions. Their Bill duly became law with this unusual provision in it.
Then, of course, we had to consider how this should be handled in relation to the double taxation agreement which we sought after the Indian Bill of 1953 had become law. Our approach was that on this matter we should require the Indian Government to come to a reasonable settlement in relation to double taxation. However, to cut a long story short—and I have told the House that these negotiations were prolonged—it became all too clear that we were faced with a choice, because the Indian Government were definitely not going to make any concession on this point in a double taxation agreement. We were, therefore, faced with the choice either of accepting an agreement with this, from our point of view, objectionable concession in it, or of not getting an agreement at all.
All of us, when we are in that situation, have to balance the pros and cons and reach a decision, We have to be realists. The Government, after very carefully considering this, reluctantly came to the conclusion that we must accept the Agreement with this defect, as we think it is. We felt that, on balance, it was better from the point of view of this country to have a faulty Agreement rather than none at all, and I sincerely hope that those who have interests in India and are especially concerned with this matter, having considered the question with equal care, will have come to the conclusion that the course we took was the right one. I felt that it was proper for me to inform the

House frankly of this, and to explain the reasons why we have accepted in this Agreement a most unusual feature, and a feature which we regret.
There is only one other point to which I think I ought to draw the attention of the House, and that is the date of operation of the Agreement. The Agreement will come into force on the date on which the relevant Order in Council is made here, or the date on which the Agreement is implemented in India by way of notification in the Official Gazette, whichever is the later. I understand that the Indian Government propose to issue their notification on the date on which our Order in Council is made.
The Agreement will then take effect as regards the estates of all persons who die on or after the date when it comes into force, and in addition as regards the estate of anyone dying before that date and after 15th October, 1953, if the accountable person elects to have the provisions applied to the deceased's estate. If such an election is made, it will render retrospective relief possible to the beginning of the period of double Estate Duty.
It will be appreciated that the option must lie with the accountable person, because the British Government have no means of tracing all those people who may be affected. But if the Agreement is approved, it will be possible for those concerned to claim the benefit of it in such a way that there will never be a period when an estate would be liable, as it has been in the last two or three years, to the charge of double duty. I shall be very happy indeed to seek to answer any questions from either side of the House, but I can assure the House that in all respects, apart from those which I have mentioned, the Agreement is in standard form.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: After that very plain and lucid explanation by the Financial Secretary, there can be very few question that any of us would wish to ask. In my copy of the draft Order I had underlined the very points which the right hon. Gentleman has made, because, like a number of other hon. Members, I have watched a good many of these agreements go through from 1945 onwards. I suppose that one day we


shall come to some sort of finality. Nevertheless, Session after Session we seem to find a place in the world with which to make a double taxation agreement of one kind or another.
It is to be regretted that India has taken the line which it has followed in respect of British companies with shareholders, in India. As I understand the Financial Secretary, it means that no credits whatever will pass and it will be as if those concerned were outside the scope of the Agreement. I cannot imagine anybody accountable not choosing to take advantage of these provisions. If the Agreement is worth anything, everybody involved will seek to take advantage of it. Apart, therefore, from that one real point we on this side of the House think that the Agreement is an excellent one.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: It never does harm to declare an interest, however remote or problematical it may be. My interest in this instance arises from the fact that I do business in India and that the greater part of the income of one company with which I am concerned arises in India. I am sure that we should not let this Agreement pass through the House and be approved without paying a very special tribute to the civil servants who were concerned in the negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has said, the negotiations were protracted and the tact and skill with which they were conducted were of such a nature as to excite the admiration and respect of everybody who had any contact with them.
My right hon. Friend has pin-pointed the nigger in the woodpile, but, on the whole, I think that the Agreement is satisfactory, except for one serious

blemish. The Indian Income Tax law is such that any company in which the major part of the income arises in India is regarded as being resident in India for the purposes of Indian Income Tax. Under the Indian Estate Duty law of 1953 it was provided that any company which was regarded by the Indian Government as being resident in India for Income Tax purposes should also be liable to this penalisation, this impost, of 7½ per cent. in respect of the estates of any shareholders in that company who might die and who were not resident in India. The result is that a totally new principle as regards the assessment to Estate Duty has been introduced, a principle which seems to us in this country to be wholly reprehensible.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government regard this blemish in the Agreement as seriously as I do, and as other people do who have been going into the matter. I would not suggest that the House should reject the Agreement on the score of this one blemish, but I would express the hope that perhaps paragraph 2, in Article III, which is the offending paragraph, will before long be rendered null and void by the negotiation of a further agreement providing that in the future the question of which country should assess Income Tax will be decided upon the sole criterion of where the control of the company lies. If that can once be established, the rest will follow.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (India) Order. 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 13th April.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — CALF SUBSIDY SCHEMES

9.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we also debate the similar Scheme for Scotland, and then perhaps, Sir, you will allow the Questions to be put separately?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If that suits the convenience of the House, it can be done.

Mr. Nugent: Thank you, Sir; that will simplify our deliberations on the figures. The figures I shall put before the House will be related to Great Britain, and this may save us the confusion of dodging between England and Wales and Scotland separately.
The effect of the Scheme is to make a small amendment to the Calf Subsidy Scheme which we approved last year and which is running from 30th October, 1955, to 29th October, 1958. The effect of this amendment is to increase the calf subsidy on steer calves from £7 10s. each to £8 10s. The subsidy on heifer calves will remain the same at £7 10s. The effect of this small change will be, we think, to give a useful additional incentive in the general context of the object of the Calf Subsidy Scheme.
I expect the House would wish to have the figures of the cost of this Scheme. In the last financial year this was £7·7 million, and it applied to 750,000 steers and 650,000 heifers. Of course, during that year the higher rate of subsidy, £7 10s., was operative for only part of the time because calves qualify for subsidy at eight months old normally and, therefore, for the greater part of the last financial year subsidy was being paid at the lower rate. The estimated cost of the subsidy for the current financial year is £11½ million.
The calf subsidy is, in effect, an advance payment for beef production. If we did not pay this amount by way of calf subsidy, we should undoubtedly pay

a similar amount by way of an addition to the end price for beef. The calf subsidy, we think—with occasional dissentients—has a special appeal to small farmers; indeed, it appeals to all farmers, but especially to the small ones. Its effect is that it is paid to the actual rearer of the calves instead of, if there was an increase in the end price, such proportion of the end price as might be reflected by the market finding its way back into the pocket of the rearer. As the rearer is the man who decides whether the calf shall be reared instead of being slaughtered as a bobby calf, obviously he is a vital link in the chain.
Its effect in practice has been to secure a very considerable increase in the retention of steer calves from the dairy herd which, in the past, were being killed at perhaps three or four days old as bobby calves, and were making no contribution at all to meat production.
In this connection, it is, I think, of interest to the House to record that there has been a greatly increased use of beef bulls in artificial insemination in dairy herds. Dairy farmers, wherever they find that, because of the excellence of their herds, they can produce more calves than they need as replacements in order to maintain the strength of their herds, are able to use beef bulls for crossing on to some of their dairy cows. Thus, a proportion of the calves which they obtain can be reared for beef, while they retain enough, of course, to make the necessary replacements in their dairy herds. That has made a very useful contribution to the nation's larder.
Secondly, the calf subsidy is an additional incentive to the expansion of the beef breeding herd, which is showing a small but continuing expansion.
The latest full figures that I can give the House are those of 4th June. Naturally, I have not the figures for today. Therefore, I can relate the figures only to 1955. I can give the March figures for this year, which will take us a little further. The broad picture of the use of the calf subsidy shows that on 4th June, I952, the under one-year-olds were 638,000 males and 1,367,000 females, which had increased by 4th June, 1955, to 851,000 males and 1,415,000 females, showing an increase over the three years of 213,000 males


and 48,000 females, a total increase of 261,000.
It is true, as was commented last year, that in the year 1954–55 the increase was checked and there was a small fall in the number of under one-year-olds, but it appears that in the past twelve months the check has been overcome, probably, I should think, to a large extent because of the increase that we made in the calf subsidy last year. The result is that we see in the March figures this year, which are the latest figures that I can give the House, an increase of 102,000 in England and Wales—that is an actual figure—and an estimate of an extra 2,000 in Scotland—the Scottish figures do not include under one-year-olds for the March return giving a total increase over the twelve months from March, 1955, to March, 1956, of 104,000 under one-yearold retained calves. That shows that we are achieving a very satisfactory increase again in the expansion of the number of calves retained to be subsequently fattened for beef. I expect that the June figures, when we get them, will show the same increasing trend as the March figures which I have just quoted.
The figures show that we are getting useful progress in the expansion of the home production of beef, and I am quite confident that this calf subsidy is making a very valuable contribution to it. It is particularly a help in the marginal milk producer's case to attract him to swing over to beef production instead of milk, of which we already have enough. I feel it has been performing a useful function in the past and can continue to do so in the future. and it is with confidence that I commend it to the House.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: We thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation which he has given of this Scheme. I gather from what he said—and I have heard it elsewhere that this Scheme really gives effect to a change which came into being as a result of negotiations in the Price Review. Can I take it that there will be no dispute between the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and any of the general secretaries of the unions concerned about what he has said today? Can I take it for granted that there was agreement on this and that they are all

prepared to say that there was agreement, or shall we have his hon. Friends putting down Questions to try to get some difficulties cleared up at a later stage? I cannot imagine that that will happen, but one never knows, with the present Government, what will happen in that sort of connection.
This subsidy comes under the general heading of a production grant. Despite the opposition of some of my hon. Friends, I have tended to favour production grants as against, in some cases, increasing the susbidy on end prices. One has to a certain extent to use both methods, but I certainly tend to favour the production grant method where it is applicable and where it can be used to good effect. In addition to the figures which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given, I learn that during the last two years the number of milking cows has decreased by more than 100,000, while cows producing beef animals have increased by 125,000.
I am sure that in existing circumstances to some extent that is going in the right direction and is attributable to the calf subsidy, but only to some extent, for the farmers must also look to the price the fat beast is likely eventually to fetch. At the time when the increase in the number of cows producing beef animals began there was a reasonable guarantee of a satisfactory end price.
There was not only this question of the subsidy coming into these figures, but a reasonable degree of satisfaction by the farmer that eventually the beef he produced would fetch a price of which he had some knowledge before reaching the time when he had to sell the beast. There was also a reasonable guarantee of price, even when the Government began their period of decontrol, for there was a collective and individual guarantee. This year, however, the individual guarantee has been swept away, and the farmer has had a sufficient experience of the socalled free market. Last year, they saw prices fluctuate by as much as 60s. per live cwt. in a fat beast. The price fluctuated not only from market to market, but also from week to week, from a high peak to what is undoubtedly a low valley. I suppose the Government would regard this as the good old way, but I doubt whether the farmers would call it that.
I am not sure that this fluctuation is the sort of thing which will, in the long run, stimulate the production of beef, which is the purpose of the subsidy. In my opinion, there is no use encouraging the production at one end of the life of an animal if it is discouraged at the other. Farmers who have experienced stability of price—as they did over a long period —very naturally fear this sort of instability to which they are now returning. Even if the milk price is not now so attractive as it was, the milk cheque still has much to recommend it.
I am not so optimistic as is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about this trend continuing in the way in which he wishes, and we would all wish. It is quite obvious that there is a need, not for an immediate further production of milk but for more beef, but I am not sure whether the way in which the Government are setting about the matter is the right way to ensure the continuance of the trend which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rightly noted when recommending the Schemes.
The £8 10s. for the steer and £7 10s. for the heifer calf is a very high rate of subsidy, and should obviously be granted only to animals of the highest quality. That was agreed at every stage in the passage of the Act through this and the other House, and it was certainly stressed when the two Schemes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred went through this House. I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman is satisfied about the standard set by his certifying officers. I have heard of no complaints from farmers for a long time, which, in the very nature of things, makes me wonder whether certifying officers are setting their standards high enough. We know that if they are set fairly high we usually hear something about it from the farmers.
When the first Scheme was introduced, many hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies complained about the high standards which were then being set. It was right that the Ministry should start by ensuring that its certifying officers set a high standard, and I should like to know if they are retaining that initial standard in relation to the payment of this subsidy, which amounts in a full year to over £11 million. That is a lot of money, and it is right that the Minister should satisfy the taxpayers as to the direction in which it is going and

whether it is doing what it is intended to do.
The whole point of the examination and certification is that someone should be satisfied that the calf will satisfactorily turn the feeding stuffs which it consumes into good beef, and that it will do so reasonably economically. With a calf aged eight months an expert should be able to make a fairly good stab at coming to such a decision—but in present circumstances it is only a stab. I believe we could do this job more scientifically and that we ought so to do.
Experience of progeny testing in the United States of America has shown that the bull exerts considerable influence on live weight gains and the kind of food consumed to produce those gains. Progeny testing, properly carried out—which should be very much easier now that we are using artificial insemination —would enable us to do very much more than make a stab at selecting these animals.
I believe that we should scientifically pick the right kind of calf for feeding on to beef. If we were scientifically to select that calf I believe we would be making sure that this £11½ million was going in the right direction. So far as I know, we are doing nothing about progeny testing in this way. We are only just starting to do it with pigs. We are lagging behind other countries and we ought to be developing this matter as rapidly as we can.
We are continually told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are in difficulties about obtaining sufficient foreign currency for the purpose of imports. Certainly, feedingstuffs are very costly to bring in and we ought not to bring them in unless we are sure that the currency we expend on those feedingstuffs is not wastefully used, but is, in fact, being turned into something which we could not get any other way.
If I am wrong about what I regard as the disincentive of price fluctuations and the removal of the price guarantee, and if the rise in the production of beef continues, as I hope it will, we shall have to do something about cold storage. I know that I must not discuss that matter under this Scheme, but if we are to have supplies of beef produced partly as a result of this subsidy we ought to be able to take the fat cattle off grass feeding


and to spread the sale of the meat over the whole of the year. To do that, we need adequate cold storage facilities.
My final point is this: have the Government given any thought to the possibility of using part of this subsidy which we are now granting as an incentive to the dehorning of calves? That crops up from time to time and seems to have some validity. I should like to hear what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has to say about it.
We are not voting against this Scheme any more than we voted against the Act of 1952, but we have no illusions about the calf subsidy. It will not of itself give the country more and better beef at an economical price. Only a combination of calf subsidy, progeny testing and a guarantee of price and market will be able to do that. We only have the first of those three; the other two are missing. We on this side of the House think it time the Government looked at some of the things they have done in connection with the guarantee of price and their failure to do something about progeny testing.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) was not quite as pessimistic all the way through his speech as he was in the early stages. I think he placed too much emphasis on the question of the individual guarantee, but I agree with the point which he made later on, the importance of cold storage, because when we extend our cold storage facilities in this country we shall be creating another factor which will help to give stability to the market.
I am sure the whole industry will welcome the fact that the Government are continuing and strengthening this Scheme, but I should like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that if, during the period of three years for which I believe this Scheme is designed, it seems clear that advantage can be gained by modifying the Scheme, he will not refuse to do so. The sum in question—£11 million—is a big sum. In introducing the Scheme, my hon. Friend referred to the special advantage to the farmer whom he called the marginal milk producer. The marginal milk producer is indeed in a very difficult position. Many people, including the Milk Marketing Board, would prefer that he

were not a milk producer at all and that he devoted his energies and resources to something else, such as rearing cattle. When we consider the case of the typical small farmer on not-very-good land, we can easily see the difficultles and disadvantages of transferring from milk production, with its regular return, to something else, not only with a greater uncertainty but with a far longer term. To such a man this subsidy is undoubtedly very important.
Is it not possible to consider whether we can give that man a slightly larger share of the help? One test which we must apply to these agricultural subsidies is they should go to help real need. I believe that very many large producers on the better land do not need this measure of support, while many of the marginal milk producers, the small men on poorer land, could well do with a little more.
I am not suggesting that the sum of £11 million should be increased, but if a bigger share were available to these men, more of them would, I think, turn over to the rearing of beef cattle. Most of them are not in a position to finish cattle; their job is to breed cattle, either pure beef or crossbred, rear them and then pass them on. My right hon. Friend will not get support for this from the large farmers he need not expect it—but I hope that if it becomes apparent that there is advantage to the nation in some modification such as I suggest, he will not turn it down flat.
The principle may be a little original in this connection, but it is not really so original; it is simply the case of the family allowances in reverse. Instead of nothing for the first child and an increased sum thereafter, there would be a sliding scale with more for, say, the first few calves and a smaller sum thereafter.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Dye: I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was not quite his usual confident self when he introduced and explained this Scheme. I thought he lacked a good deal of confidence in submitting it to the House. He advanced an argument that if this £11½ million, which the subsidy is expected to total this year, were not paid in the form of a calf subsidy, it would have to be paid in a subsidy for the end product.
As he well knows, the amount of subsidy paid for beef cattle when they are marketed depends upon the market price and the difference between the market price and the standard price; and the Government are paying a much higher subsidy than they were paying a year ago. On what ground does he suggest that the higher we raise the calf subsidy the less we, have to pay in beef subsidy?
The hon. Gentleman is raising the calf subsidy this year and he is now paying 10s. a live cwt. on the beef subsidy. Both are going up. So, too, is the price of beef. So the arguments which the hon. Gentleman advances for the consideration of the House seem quite fallacious. There seems to be no ground whatever for anticipating that by agreeing to this calf subsidy there will be a smaller beef subsidy, or that people will get their beef cheaper.
Actually, these things are running along different lines. I thought so when the hon. Gentleman chose as a basis for comparison the year 1952. He chose the year with the lowest number of animals under one year. If he had gone back two years to 1950—but, of course, the Labour Government was in office then, so that might be prohibitive from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman—he would have found that the advance is pratically nil.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: What about 1951?

Mr. Dye: The number in 1951 and 1950 was about the same. The fall came in 1952. The hon. Gentleman takes that as his basis, and he says that on that basis he has been able to bring about by this subsidy an increase of 100,000 calves in a year. If he goes back to 1950, there is practically no great increase—it is only just 10,000. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that on the basis of having increased the subsidy the Government have increased the number of beef animals under one year. This is an important matter when we are dealing with this subsidy, but what is of even greater importance is: what is the country getting for it? Is it getting more beef cattle?
These are the figures from the latest available Statistical Digest. The number of beef cattle slaughtered on a monthly average for 1954 was 216,000. The

number of beef cattle slaughtered in 1955 was 207,000, a decrease, if my arithmetic is right, of 9,000 a month, or 108,000 for the year—108,000 fewer cattle slaughtered in 1955 than in 1954. Those figures are available to all hon. Members; they come straight from the Library of the House. On that basis, we are giving more and more in subsidy—£8 10s. per steer calf now, whereas three years ago it was only £5 and we are getting less and less beef.
When we come to the latest figures for 1956, we find that, whereas, for the first quarter of 1955, the total number was 699,000 for the first quarter of 1956 the total figures were 666,000, a decrease, when comparing the two quarters, of 33,000. When we multiply that by four, we see that the decline in 1956 is greater than in 1955, on the 1954 figures, so we are not getting more cattle. If there are more calves being subsidised where are they going, if they are not coming on to the market in the form of finished fat cattle?
Even more striking are the figures for home-slaughtered beef. The monthly averages for 1954 were 60,400 tons. For 1955, they were 55,600 tons. That is an average monthly reduction of 4,800 tons or, for the whole year, a reduction of 57,600 tons. The total figure for the first quarter of 1955 was 201,900 tons, and for the first quarter of 1956 it was 184,500 tons, which is a reduction in the first quarter of 1956 as against that of 1955 of 17,400 tons. That means that in 1956 there has been a bigger fall in beef as well as beef cattle than in 1954.
How, therefore, can anybody claim a success for this scheme? No wonder the Joint Parliamentary Secretary came to the Box lacking in confidence in recommending this Scheme to the House. If I may say so, I thought that he also looked a little shamefaced, because when we last discussed this matter I asked, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), why it was not made a condition of giving the calf subsidy that the horned calves should be dehorned. We asked that in June of last year. The hon. Gentleman then said that the matter was being considered and that as what we were then discussing was only an interim arrangement we could, when we came to the next threeyear period—if circumstances permitted and the rest—include it.
He mentions nothing about that today, yet every rearer of beef cattle—and of dairly cattle for that matter—knows full well that it is a disadvantage to have horned cattle. It is a simple operation to dehorn, and can be carried out painlessly on the calves. Wherever one sees a bunch of dehorned calves reared together they look much better than those that are not so treated. I have been interested in watching the markets in Norfolk during this year. I thought that there had been a great improvement in the store cattle that came to the markets. In every case they had been dehorned. If that is an advantage, and the best farmers, the best rearers, do it, why do the Government go on year after year giving the same subsidy to those who do not dehorn?
There is no excuse whatever. When this matter was put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in June last, I think he felt that we really ought not to go on like this year after year. Yet now a Scheme is put in for a shorter period. It is true that it is back-dated to last October, but we ought not to be asked to agree to a Scheme for further subsidising calves without insisting on their being dehomed. There are other things upon which we could insist, but we should not have been asked to do that this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) is not here, but I think that on every occasion he has pointed out that the special hill farm subsidy for cows that rear calves is now £10 a year, plus £8 10s. for the calf from the hill at six months old. That makes a subsidy of £18 10s. One-third of the total market price of a 10 cwt. bullock is represented by subsidy, Where are we going? In June last year I pointed out that these subsidies were apparently increasing year by year. We have now arrived at the stage where the total subsidy for a calf which is reared on a hill farm amounts to £18 10s.
In addition, taking into account calves which are not reared on the hill, we are reaching the stage when one-fifth of the total value of a 10 cwt. animal is represented by subsidy. But the people are not getting cheaper meat. We ought to know more about the administration of this Scheme before we agree to the Scheme for a further period of three years.

Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the subsidy ought to be reduced? Is that the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument?

Mr. Dye: I think the logic of my argument is that, so far, the Scheme has been a failure. Taking 1950 as the basis, in spite of all the increased subsidy, we have not increased the number of beef cattle. Indeed, we are now getting less beef cattle on to the market. Of course, it may be argued that if there had been no subsidy, there might have been a still greater decrease, but from my practical experience it seems to me that the subsidy has not achieved the object of increasing the amount of beef on the market. If the Government continue to allow the heavy importation of cheap Argentine beef for another year the bottom will be knocked out of rearing store cattle, however much subsidy is paid.

Mr. Osborne: I represent a constituency which is interested in this matter. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman most carefully, and I think he has stated his case reasonably and fairly. As I understand, he says that one-third of the market price is in the form of subsidy.

Mr. Dye: That the subsidy is equal to one-third of the market price.

Mr. Osborne: What I should like to know is this. Having given the House those facts, is the hon. Gentleman saying that as a consequence the subsidy ought to be cut? If so, by how much?

Mr. Dye: I could not give a simple answer, because the whole system of marketing has gone wrong. When we had a fixed price, graded according to quality, the producer knew what he was doing. He did not want any further subsidy in addition. If we want to put beef production on to a sound basis in this country, we must go back to a system of guaranteed prices based upon the weight and quality of the finished article. This system of free markets, plus everincreasing subsidies at both ends of the scale, for the calf and for the finished animal, is leading the nation to ruin. It is costing the taxpayer more and we are getting less beef for consumption.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: It is very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Norfolk, SouthWest (Mr. Dye). He condemned the calf subsidy because he said it was too high, but he was not prepared to say that it should be reduced or done away with altogether. The hon. Gentleman then made a comparison which I could not altogether follow. He mentioned the very low number of cattle under one year old in existence in 1952. My memory may be bad, but if I were asked to give an explanation of that it would be that in their last year of office the Socialist Government either reduced the calf subsidy or did away with it altogether. The result was that there were far fewer calves in 1952 because no encouragement was given to rear them, and the number of cattle under one year old was also considerably reduced. I think that is an argument in favour of the subsidy.
I have never been in favour of subsidies. I think that an end price is much better than a subsidy, because my experience as a calf rearer is that the subsidy goes immediately to the milk producer. I have been paying as much as £22 for one-week-old calves, and, the finished beef being one third subsidy, that subsidy has gone to the milk producer.

Mr. Dye: That is exactly what I said. I said that I was in favour of a guaranteed price for the end product according to its grade and quality and with doing away with the other subsidies.

Mr. Baldwin: I was under the impression that we still had a guaranteed price of £7 11s. which is considerably higher than it has ever been and very much higher than at any time when the Socialist Government held office.
I think that the way in which the guaranteed price is worked is wrong, because I believe that the beef producer should be receiving a price comparable to the cost of production. The average price should be worked in the same way as the wheat subsidy and spread throughout the year in accordance with the cost of production. I do not agree with this rolling average which is talked about under which a man is paid a deficiency payment based on something which happened 52 weeks before. Conversations

are now taking place between the farmers' representatives and the Ministry, and I hope that as a result of those conversations something will be evolved which will be much more satisfactory to the producers.
Now a word about cold storage, a subject which has been mentioned by two other hon. Members in this debate. I do not agree with the contention put forward that we should go into the question of cold storage.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot talk about cold storage on the calf subsidy.

Mr. Baldwin: There have been two advocates for cold storage and I feel that I ought to be able—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) mentioned it, but instantly checked himself when found that he was transgressing the bounds of order. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) should follow his example.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not want to see our cattle in competition with the imports of frozen beef from Australia and elsewhere. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West mentioned the importation of Argentine beef which has depressed the market, but he did not suggest what should be done to stop it. I make the suggestion, which I have made on many occasions, that the way to deal with our industry is by having tariff protection rather than by having these shots in the arm. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West spoke about this.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) mentioned it, but the hon. Member is now trying to develop it. That is not allowed.

Mr. Baldwin: The next point I wish to take up is that raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. He began by pouring more oil on the fire and by saying that the farmers were complaining about an individual guaranteed price. The individual guaranteed price was introduced for one purpose only. Because of the contentions that were made of butchers' rings and so on, the individual guaranteed price was brought in to meet those cases where individual farmers had a bad market because of butchers' rings. The


individual farmer is not bound to send in to market at all. He has his organisation through which he can send and there is no reason whatever for an individual guaranteed price, which was simply bolstering up the inefficient producer. I am very glad that it has been done away with.
My next point concerns progeny testing. Judging by what we have have heard, one would think that breeders of cattle had been doing nothing towards improving their stock for many years, or at all, and that the only way in which stock was improved was through a progeny testing station. Every breeder of pedigree cattle is a progeny tester; we have been doing it for many generations. In my lifetime, the quality of beef cattle has been raised to a very high standard by the progeny testing which we ourselves have done in the course of the years.
If it is sought to encourage the polling of cattle instead of asking the Ministry to increase the subsidy on polled calves, the buyers themselves when they get polled store cattle in the market should give a reward to those who put the polled cattle in the market; and they would very soon have all the polled calves possible.
I do not want hon. Members opposite to imagine that we have not been thinking along these lines in the breeding world for some time. At the moment, there is more breeding for polled stock than I ever remember. In the last few years, it has speeded up tremendously. For my own breed of cattle, there are two poll societies working independently and in competition with the horned cattle. Other breeds have done the same. I do not want it to go out from this House that the breeders of cattle are so backward that they do not recognise the value of polled cattle.

10.2 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I do not wish at this late hour to detain the House for many moments, but I should like to say a word on two points. Hon. Members have spoken of dehorning and the breeding of polled cattle, which is an entirely different question. It will take many years to introduce the polled element into the present horned cattle. At last breeders of

beef cattle have arrived at the conclusion that there are many advantages in having their species polled. It will take a long time before it is an accomplished fact, and it seems a great pity that at this time the Ministry, when it has given a subsidy for calves, does not introduce that element into the Scheme which we are asked to pass tonight.
In the meantime, with very little trouble, calves could be polled and farmers, who are traditionally conservative in their outlook, could be encouraged to discover the advantages of having hornless cattle. Undoubtedly, great damage is done in dairy herds and much greater room is needed in yards to feed horned cattle than dehorned cattle. For this reason, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not taken the opportunity, as he could easily have done tonight, to introduce polled or dehorned cattle into this Scheme for calf subsidies.
I think it is a retrograde step that Friesian heifers do not qualify for the subsidy. It will be seen that according to the Scheme, Jersey, Guernsey, Friesian and Ayrshire heifers do not qualify for it. I think that that is entirely wrong. As many Members know, I am an interested party as a breeder of Friesian cattle. I would add, however, that few of my Friesian heifers ever reach the block because they are sold into dairy herds for dairy purposes. At the same time, there is no doubt that Friesian type heifers make excellent beef. Indeed, butchers nowadays are turning more and more towards the fleshy Friesian type rather than the fatty beef type for the requirements of the public.

Sir Robert Boothby: What about the Shorthorns?

Sir J. Barlow: They are a different story.
Friesian steers, and especially Friesian type heifers, are much looked for in the markets for beef, and in my opinion it is entirely wrong that the Ministry have taken this arbitrary decision and excluded them from this Scheme.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: With permission, I will briefly reply to some of the points which have been made. I apologise for not rising immediately my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) sat down. I thought he


was going on at considerable length on the matter of Friesian heifers. The difficulty about admitting the Friesian heifers, which, I agree, can make good beef, is that four-fifths of the Friesian heifers are going into dairy herds, and this subsidy is to encourage beef production. I quite agree we cannot be absolutely certain that every heifer from the dual-purpose breeds which is certified will go for beef and that none will go into the dairy herd, but we do our utmost to keep the margin as small as possible.

Sir J. Barlow: In that ease, why do the dairy Shorthorns qualify for the subsidy? They are in similar circumstances to those of the Friesian heifers.

Mr. Nugent: As my hon. Friend knows, Shorthorns are of two types, the dairy type and the beef type. While, as I have already admitted, it is not possible to be 100 per cent. sure that every heifer which is certified as suitable for good beef will go for beef and does not go into the dairy herd, we keep the margin as small as possible. If we were to agree to what my hon. Friend is asking we should immediately enlarge the margin by fourfifths of all the Friesian heifers, and clearly we should be going directly against the purpose of the subsidy. So I must with regret tell my hon. Friend it is not possible.
My hon. Friend talked also about dehorning, and that was mentioned also by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, SouthEast (Mr. Champion) and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). I did not mention it because it is not in the Scheme. If I am allowed to make a reply to the many queries on the matter, I would say that I feel, and, indeed, it is the Government's view, that the right way to deal with this question of dehorning is to let the market decide. I entirely agree with the view that the polled or dehorned animal is a far more manageable animal and infinitely better, especially for yarding.
However, when we have a subsidy for the encouragement of beef production I do not think it is for the Government to decide whether the animal should be dehorned or not. It is far better for the market to do so, and it normally does. On the other hand, there are various considerations affecting pedigree beef breeding, and animals for show, where they might be seriously penalised if they were

without horns. Therefore, we have to take a broad view of this. We are getting what we want, increased production of calves, and we leave the market to decide what it thinks the additional value of the polled or dehorned animal is.

Mr. Dye: Surely, as long as the House of Commons has taken an interest in—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. I gather that this discussion is outside the scope of the Scheme.

Mr. Dye: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in June last year, when we were discussing a Motion similar to this, the hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that he would give consideration to this very point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is outside the scope of the Scheme, I do not think it can be discussed.

Mr. Nugent: I think that I had better pass on to firmer ground and reply to a point which was put to me by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East about the question of qualification for subsidy and what measures we were taking to ensure that only suitable beef animals qualified. The animals that are automatically excluded from qualification are Channel Island heifers, Friesian heifers and Ayrshire heifers. Everything else can qualify if conformation is suitable. In practice there is some 11 per cent. of rejects. I think that number shows that there is a fair measure of rejection. It strikes about the right balance, and the fact that none of us has received many complaints in the matter shows that the thing is being done in a reasonable way. [Interruption.] We received a good many complaints to start with that it was being done too severely.
If I may say a word of comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich, it is that we have now started discussions with the intention of further tightening up qualifications for these heifers in dual-purpose breeds, to avoid the leakage that has been occurring in their case.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East in connection with the production of beef and the use of imported feeding stuffs, I can give him an assurance that one of the most attractive features of beef production in this country is that it


can be achieved with very little imported feeding stuffs indeed, and on many farms is achieved with no bought feeding stuffs of any kind. This is a ruminant animal and really is primary production, and that is one of the reasons why we have encouraged it.
The hon. Member also referred to the need for a satisfactory end-price guarantee. I think that we have done that with the increase we have made in the standard price this year to 151s. As the months roll by and the deficiency payment grows, that, with the calf subsidy, will give a very satisfactory level of return to beef producers. There is the reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West—that we are giving a guaranteed price now which I believe is high enough, combined with the calf subsidy, to give a sufficient reward and incentive to maintain a high level of beef production and to go on increasing it.
I should like to study in HANSARD the figures which the hon. Member gave of beef production and send him a considered reply, but he will know that immediately after decontrol cattle were slaughtered at a rather earlier age, to some extent because farmers felt that prices were attractive and to a large extent because the housewife was obviously making demands for a smaller, leaner joint of meat, and the farmers were meeting the market. Therefore, inevitably, in 18 months or so after decontrol there were some fluctuations in home slaughterings. Immediately after decontrol there was a big increase in home slaughterings, then there was a decrease, and now we are going forward with an increase.
The figures I gave of an increase of 104,000 in the March figures for 1956 over 1955 are a solid indication that we are getting a further increase in calf and beef production and we shall, of course, in the next couple of years have a further increase in slaughterings. Therefore, I think that I can set the hon. Member's mind at rest that we are getting full value for the subsidy and that the House will be fully justified in passing this Scheme.
I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said about the reason why I chose 1952. I chose it because that was the year in which we passed legislation to re-introduce the calf subsidy. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite ended the calf subsidy in 1951 and the decline from the high level of 1950 to the low level of 1952 was, in my opinion at any rate, largely due to the fact that the calf subsidy had been discontinued. I think that the increasing trend shows that whatever criticisms may be made about calf subsidies—and there are arguments on both sides—they achieve the desired result and make a special appeal to the small farmer.
I think I have said enough to commend this scheme to the House, and I hope that the House will now be ready to give its approval.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved.
Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1956 [copy laid before the House, 17th April], approved.—[Mr. Niall Macpherson.]

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (FURNITURE TRADE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. A. S. Moody: It is not my intention to delay the House long, as I am sure that on this occasion the Parliamentary Secretary will want ample time to reply.
We are concerned about the serious position developing in the furniture trade, and we are staggered by the figures of unemployment and short-time that are issued by the furniture trade unions. On 3rd May, the hon. Gentleman gave an answer to a Question of mine which did not appear to me to touch the problem. I do not suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary was misleading the House, but the fact is that the furniture trade unions throughout the country at the end of March showed that, out of 45,000 members, 4,000 were unemployed. The union branch returns for the March quarter showed that the 36 branches in the north-eastern counties report 102 discharged and 1,043 on short time. In Newcastle, on the cabinet side, 230 workers were on short time, and on the soft furnishing side 400 were on short time.
It is our claim that, according to the trade union figures, 9 per cent. of the total membership is unemployed and 33 per cent. of the workers are on short time. I hardly imagine that the Minister will accept those figures and, because of the difference between our figures and the ones he suggested in his reply on 3rd May, we have had to look for a bridge in order to arrive somewhere near the true total.
I think that a contribution to the difference in the figures is made by the method of registration. Whereas the furniture trade unions call furnishing trade workers the people engaged in making furniture for the homes of the people, the hon. Gentleman in his registration covers a far wider range. This takes in bar fitters, shop fitters and, I understand, the manufacturers of wooden busts for models. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the furniture trade unions we do not classify the makers of

wooden busts amongst workers on the soft furnishing side or on the cabinet side of the industry.
In addition, many members who have reported as unemployed have realised that under present conditions there is little chance of being re-absorbed into the industry. Consequently, they have gone into other forms of employment. While this will reduce the numbers on the hon. Gentleman's books, it represents to the furniture industry a serious loss of skilled craftsmen whom we may never get back.
I think the Minister will now see the position as the furniture trade workers see it. The appalling thing to us is the alteration from full employment to the situation which is now with us and is developing for the worse largely as a result of Government policy. The alteration in respect of hire-purchase agreements has had a catastrophic effect upon full employment in the furniture industry. One point which I should like the hon. Gentleman to commend to his right hon. Friend for examination is the deposit for new furniture, which is now about 33⅓ per cent.
The old practice among the workers when they got married, particularly in the north of England, was to decide how much they could afford to pay weekly for furniture. They then entered into a hire-purchase agreement for furniture on the basis of that weekly sum. If they were good payers, when half the total sum was paid off the dealer would allow them to have some more furniture, bringing the total amount they owed back to the original sum. By this means, workers gradually added to their furniture.
Under the Government's present arrangements with the increased deposit, that system has been knocked on the head. Each agreement has to be a separate transaction and carries with it the requirement for a 33⅓ per cent. deposit. This is causing unemployment in the furniture trade. We believe it to be the only trade handicapped in such a manner. If we could return to the old continuing credit policy, it would assist towards full employment in the industry.
It might be said that the Purchase Tax on necessary furniture ought to be abolished altogether. In addition, we think that a deposit of 33⅓ per cent. is too high. In the case of building societies


and almost every other kind of transaction, a 10 per cent. deposit is regarded as a reasonable margin to meet alll contingencies, and we think that a 10 per cent. deposit would be high enough in the case of furniture.
Also, the agreed profit margin of 45 per cent. to sales people is too high and makes the furniture too dear. The high profit margin and the Purchase Tax are killing the industry. I urge the Minister to stop the development of an ugly situation and do something to maintain full employment in the furniture industry.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: ; My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody) has done a service to the workers in the furniture industry by raising tonight the effect of the Government's financial policy upon the skilled trades. It is as well that we should take the opportunity of reminding the Government that there is grave disquiet among the workers in the industry. They are most apprehensive about the future and see no gleam of hope for their craft and in their industry. To a very large extent, what is now happening must lie at the door of the Government.
When we had an economic debate recently, reference was made to the figures of unemployment and short time in the furnishing trades. There was an argument about whose figures were right, those of the Minister, or those given from this side of the House. I am not sure that the Minister inquired into that. if there has been an inquiry—and no statement has so far been given to the House—I hope that a statement will be made this evening. I am much concerned that the information coming from the unions shows that the curve of employment is going down. That is likely to continue, unless the Government's policy is altered in some way.
The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East for presenting this opportunity of obtaining a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary. We do not want a merely pious statement. The workers in the industry want reassurance, and unless that reassurance is given the difficulties facing them will become more acute, as will the difficulties within the

industry itself. I do not know whether, in going about the country, the Parliamentary Secretary has observed, as I have, that furnishing shop after furnishing shop is closing down, an indication not only of the present position in the industry, but of what will happen in the future, if further unemployment occurs. The House is indebted to my hon. Friend and I hope that we will have a statement tonight which will reassure the workers in the industry.

10.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I should like, first, to clear one or two of the specific matters raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall). He referred to the figures mentioned in the debate on employment on 20th March. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend looked into the points then raised and wrote to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis). That letter was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 19th April. May I summarise the position? In order to get figures for use in the employment debate, we had to make an estimate more hurriedly than we usually make our estimates. The revised estimate given in the letter, while still falling considerably short of the union's figure, was substantially higher than that given by my right hon. Friend in the debate. That is something which I should make clear at the outset.
Many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody) are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. If those were the issues about which they particularly wanted to speak tonight, they should have addressed the Adjournment debate to my right hon. Friend's Department and not to mine. I can deal in detail only with that part of the picture which affects the Ministry of Labour, and that I will try to do. All I want to say about the general economic and trading picture is that we must consider the points which the two hon. Members have made against the background of the general purpose of our economic policy.
The prime purpose and duty of the Government is undoubtedly to maintain full employment in this country, and to maintain it not just this year but over a


long and continuing period. If we are to achieve this, full employment cannot mean a fixed pattern of employment, in which the level of employment in any particular industry never changes. In the conditions which we have to face, there must be flexibility and change. Industries must rise and fall in size, not just for the fun of it, but because world economic circumstances compel us in these directions.
I certainly do not want to belittle the seriousness and the unpleasantness of such change to those affected by it, but we must realise that it is unavoidable, and though I regret that some furniture workers may at the moment have had to go into other industries, I cannot accept any definition that classes those people as unemployed. It may be that they would rather be employed in the furniture industry—and it may be that they can be again employed in it—but they cannot be regarded as unemployed when they are in fact in full-time employment. We cannot include in our figures of unemployment people who have had to transfer temporarily to another industry.
The danger to full employment is that we may become unable to afford to bring in enough raw materials from abroad to keep all our factories at work. I am here referring not merely to the furniture industry but to all industries. We have been consuming too much at home and selling too little abroad. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to introduce measures to restrain the booming growth of home consumption. That is the reason for the hire-purchase restrictions and the Purchase Tax changes—two matters mentioned by the hon. Member tonight.
Those are matters primarily for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to debate, and I would remind the hon. Member that there have been at least two debates in this House upon that subject, including one raised on the Adjournment by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins), who dealt with the furniture industry.
I would like to correct the hon. Member for Gateshead, East upon one point. I think he referred to the hire-purchase deposit as being 33⅓ per cent., whereas it is only 20 per cent., which is substantially lower. It was previously 15 per

cent. The hon. Gentleman now says that it would be a good thing if it were 10 per cent., but it is only fair to remind him that neither he nor his party voted against the rise to 15 per cent., although they did vote against the rise to 20 per cent.
I want to consider the effects of these restrictions upon the employment position of those in the furniture industry. In order to be clear what we are talking about—and as it was one of the points raised by the hon. Member—I will explain what the Ministry of Labour meant when it refers to the furniture industry According to the standard industrial classification used in Government Departments, the furniture industry means the manufacturing of soft furnishings, like curtains, mattresses, etc., and wooden or upholstered furniture but not metal furniture. It does not include shop and office fittings, which is a separate industry. That is the definition of the furniture industry upon which we base our statistics, and it certainly does not include shop and office fitting.
With that definition of the industry, I would like to say a word about the total employment in the industry. In December, 1952, employment in the furniture industry was 130,000. It grew during 1953 and 1954, until it reached a peak, in December, 1954, of 142,000. During 1955 it fell slightly, and at the end of last December it had dropped from 142,000 to 138,000. In the succeeding four months, to the end of this April, it dropped by a further 10,000 to 128,000, so that there was a drop of 10,000 in the first four months of this year.
Of this fall, 4,000 was in March and 2,000 in April, which means that it looks as though in April the rate of decrease was slackening and not curving more steeply downwards, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, West suggested. It is also fair to point out that some of this fall is seasonal, because there is always some fall in employment in this industry in the first few months of the year, although I readily admit that the seasonal element is only a minor part of the drop of 10,000 in employment in the industry in the first four months of this year.
I am glad to say that the fall in employment in the industry has not been reflected in a corresponding increase in unemployment. I realise that that has


meant that people who are furniture trade workers have had to leave that industry and enter another, but they are not unemployed. Indeed, unemployment in the furniture industry has risen by only a few hundred during the period of the fall of 10,000 in the figure of the total employed. I should like to point out to both hon. Members that this, again, shows that it is quite wrong to talk about the industry taking a plunge downwards.
Unemployment was, in fact, lower in May this year than at the similar time in any of the three previous years. In May, 1956, the number wholly unemployed in the furniture industry was 1,745; in May last year it was 1,839; in May, 1954, it was 2,053; and in May, 1953, it was 2,407. It was lower this May than in the three previous years.
Perhaps the hon. Member would like to see the same figures for Gateshead itself. Unemployment in May this year was 16; it was also 16 in May last year; and it was 15 in May, 1954. In Gateshead the picture is the same as it has been for the last two years, and over the country as a whole there is less unemployment in the furniture industry today than there has been at the same time in any of the three previous years.
While unemployment is not at an alarming level, I admit that a considerable amount of short-time working exists, and the main disagreement about the relative statistics of the union and of the Ministry is, I think, over short-time working. I should like to explain what are our figures on short-time working and how they are obtained.
First of all, our statistics are gathered on an industry and not on an occupational basis. They therefore do not and cannot claim to take into account all members of the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives, some of whom may be exercising their craft in other industries and not in the furniture industry itself. We can measure only the statistics for the furniture industry. If some furniture craftsmen are unemployed or working short-time in other industries, their unemployment or short-time working will be thrown up in the figures for those industries, but we cannot identify them as furniture trade workers. In all these figures I am talking about short-

time working in the furniture industry as I defined it a few moments ago.
How do we measure short-time working? An actual count is taken only once a quarter in each year—at the end of February, at the end of May, at the end of August and at the end of November. On these quarterly occasions all firms employing more than 10 men have to make a return of the number of their employees working less than their standard weekly hours. There are, of course, the very small firms with 10 or fewer employees, and they are not covered by this count. This is undoubtedly an element of incompleteness in our figures, but to try to get returns from large numbers of really tiny firms would, in our view,—and it is not an entirely new view—mean sending out a great number of forms and perhaps not getting really satisfactory answers. Our actual count of short-time working is a quarterly affair which does not take into account the very small firms.
In between these quarterly counts we make estimates—and they are only estimates—of short-time working, based on returns from local offices throughout the country. I want to make it quite clear that these estimates, unlike the actual counts, do include an estimate of what is happening at the smallest firms which are not covered by the counts. The position is, therefore, that we have our quarterly counts—which are accurate, but exclude the smallest firms that employ ten or less people—and we have the weekly estimates, which are estimates only, but which, with the long skill and experience of our local offices' staffs throughout the country, do show, if not the exact number, at least a trend. In considering these employment figures, it is probably most important, I think, to have a clear picture of the trend.
That is the explanation of the figures. I would now like to say what the figures are. There was a count at the end of May, but, as this is only 4th June, I am sorry that we have not yet got the results. The previous count was at the end of February, and amounted to 7,300. Excluding the smallest firms, therefore, I am confident that the amount of short-time working at the end of February was 7,300 in the furniture industry.
What about the estimates? At the middle of March, we estimated that there


would be about 10,000 working short-time in the industry. That is the corrected figure of the one which my right hon. Friend gave in the employment debate. In the middle of April, we estimated that the figure was still about 10,000. At the end of May—that is, last week—we estimated, I am glad to say, that the amount of short-time working had gone down probably to about 8,000.
How do those figures compare with those given by the union? The union gave a figure of 12,000 for the middle of March and 13,000 for the middle of April, as compared with our 10,000 in each case. That is appreciably higher. I have no knowledge of the union's figure for May, but there is that discrepancy between the two sets of figures for March and April. What are the possible causes of this discrepancy? Frankly, I do not know. I certainly do not want to impugn the union figures in any way.

Mr. Moody: It may be that the hon. Gentleman's Department takes shops with ten workers or more; the union may take the smaller shops.

Mr. Carr: We do try to include the smaller firms in our estimates, but it is only an estimate. It may be that the union goes wider than the furniture industry itself. It may have members working in jobs not classed by us as being in that industry. I understand also that it includes workers who have lost any time, however small, for whatever reason. It may also include workers who worked less overtime or suffered some loss of earnings through lower production even though employed for the normal working week. In collecting statistics, it is always difficult to get a strictly comparable basis. In any case, perhaps the most important matter is the trend shown, and there is no doubt that, whichever figures are taken, there is substantial short-time working.
To sum up, therefore, the furniture industry, after a period of fairly rapid expansion, has reduced its labour force, mostly in the last few months, to the level at which it started three years ago. This reduction in recent months has coincided with the period of seasonal slackness in the trade, although, as I said, I do not want to attribute to that more than a

minor part. Due to the generally high demand for labour, however, the number of wholly unemployed furniture workers has gone up by only a few hundred, although at the same time there is this considerable amount of short-time working. I am glad to say, however, that this seems to have been decreasing somewhat in recent weeks, as has the degree of actual unemployment in the industry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will watch the position carefully, and I can also assure him of what I said at the outset, that the Government regard the maintenance of full employment on a permanent basis as a primary duty.
As I have already said, the Government cannot and, indeed, should not seek to maintain any particular pattern of employment. The Government's object is to provide a sufficient volume of work in total to satisfy all those who want it, and to watch out for any signs of permanent unemployment occurring, and if so to take steps in good time to correct that trend. It is the particular task of my Department to observe the situation closely for signs of any such trend appearing.
It is also the task of my Department to see that those displaced from work by the changing needs of the economy are found the most suitable alternative jobs. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this task will be carried out with full regard for the skill and experience of the men looking for work, but we cannot guarantee that everybody will be placed in the work or industry that he has just left.
While it is true that excessive occupational change of this kind is a bad thing and gives rise to waste of laboriously acquired skills, as well as inconvenience and hardship for the persons concerned, nevertheless I fear that some degree of this sort of change may have to be tolerated in the interests of the maintenance of full employment.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.